OK, but this is just an opinion, not a fact. I remember that Matra era, and saw them win at Le Mans (defeating Ferrari and Alfa Romeo, BTW). But we cannot simply repeat it for ever, or F1 will become Formule Nostalgia
A rational assumption. He is on the grid of course and drives but would be nice if he is wrong lol Norris: F1 will have to "wait for 2026" for big shake-up McLaren driver Lando Norris reckons Formula 1 won't see dramatic performance swings before the 2026 rules reset and Red Bull will "always carry an advantage".
F1’s 2026 active aero plan set for change after alarming simulator findings Formula 1’s active aero plans for 2026 are set for a revamp following some alarming findings in simulator running of an early car model, Motorsport.com has learned. Jonathan NobleApr 9, 2024 at 11:06 AM Image Unavailable, Please Login Mark Sutton / Motorsport Images As part of the effort to increase car performance to help accommodate the characteristics of the new turbo hybrid engines that feature a 50/50 power split between the internal combustion engine and battery, the new cars are going to have moveable aero. The idea is that the car’s wings will be able to run in a high-downforce configuration in corners to help deliver grip, before shifting to a low drag configuration on the straights to help boost straightline speed. One path being explored was for only the rear wing to be moveable, as it could then work easily in conjunction with DRS and would be the least complicated solution. However, with some teams having recently been evaluating what is known as the baseline ‘Fangio’ car model in simulators to try to understand how this would work, some concerning characteristics emerged. According to sources, when the rear wing was in its most low-drag configuration and the engine was at full power, the car was almost undriveable – with multiple examples of drivers spinning on straights under acceleration or being unable to take the smallest of curves without the rear stepping out. This was triggered by a shift in aero balance that was estimated to be three times as much as is currently experienced when DRS is open. One insider even suggested that the only way to prevent the cars spinning was to drive so conservatively that the lap times ended up being slower than current Formula 2 machinery.
Max is correct! Hey F1/FIA how about listening and simplifying eh? Verstappen not a fan of F1's active aero plans for 2026 World champion Max Verstappen does not think Formula 1 should be heading in the direction of active aero – as he believes the focus should instead be on reducing the weight of the cars.
More on the potential crap-show F1 2026 is facing -- https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/newey-monaco-example-shows-why-f1-2026-will-be-a-strange-formula/10597235/ Newey: Monaco example shows why F1 2026 will be a “strange formula” Adrian Newey thinks Formula 1’s 2026 rules will take some getting used to when they appear because of the "strange" way power units will have to behave. Jonathan Noble Ronald Vording Apr 14, 2024, 10:07 AM Upd: Apr 14, 2024, 10:11 AM Image Unavailable, Please Login Zak Mauger / Motorsport Images F1 manufacturers are now hard at work in developing their next-generation turbo hybrids, which will feature a 50/50 split in power between the internal combustion engine and battery. The nature of what is coming has opened the door for what could be some unique characteristics because there will be a premium on energy recovery. Newey has revealed that effectively turning the ICEs into generators means there could even be the need for weird traits, like needing them to run at full revs through tight corners such as the hairpin in Monaco. “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 told Autosport. “So, the prospect of the engine working hard in the middle of Loews hairpin is going to take some getting used to.” Engine first formula The unique characteristics of the engine have been a cause of intrigue for a while now, as F1 chiefs are having to create the chassis rules around them. And that has active aerodynamics a necessity to help deliver more downforce in the corners and then reduce drag on the straights. Not everyone is happy about the way things have been done, with world champion Max Verstappen thinking that it was a mistake to have made the engine rules first and then try to mould the car regulations around them. “I think they realised that on the engine side, not everything is as efficient as everyone thought after all,” said Verstappen in Japan about progress on the 2026 regulations. Newey concurs that the situation is unusual, as it has made creating the chassis regulations much harder. Asked for his views on the argument that the aero rules were now a sticking plaster for an engine that was not delivering all that had been hoped, Newey said: “I think that's fair comment, and probably one that even the FIA would acknowledge - that only the engine manufacturers wanted this kind of 50/50 combustion engine with electric. “I guess it is what their marketing people said that we should be doing and I understand that: it's potentially interesting because F1 can be a fast-track developer of technology. “The problem potentially on the battery and electric side is the cost currently, certainly of electric motors to F1 standard, plus inverters and batteries. It is very high, but perhaps production techniques in the future will help to bring that down. “The other problem is the battery. What we need, or what the F1 regulations need out of the batteries in terms of power density and energy density, is quite different to what a normal road car needs. And that in itself means that the battery chemistry, and possibly battery construction is different. So, there's a risk that it won't be directly road-relevant. “But perhaps that's not the key aspect anyway. The key aspect, certainly for the manufacturers although they will never admit it, is the perception of relevance in the showroom.”
What if the market chooses a path where world population has to decrease under 1B people or we all starve ???
I'll genuinely be done if it's as described. Engine on full chat the whole race to charge batteries? Noise will be an awful, continuous drone. It'll kill F1.
As we known the market, like information, can be manipulated for the benefit of multinationals. If the public didn't pay attention, carbon emission, global warming pesticides, water pollution, obesity, or GM food would never be talked about, and our media would make us believe we live in an ideal world with nothing to worry about.
That depends on what side the media leans on with regards to Administration. Here in the States, mostly all media outlets sides with the current party hence the media's push.
The birth rate decline isn't a bad thing if we want to better manage the world resources. The model of constant growth in population, consumption, exploitation and production has to be abandoned.
When I was growing up (to the extent I bothered) in WV in the 1960s I lived in the suburbs of a town/city with 40K people. Last time I was back visiting it still had 40K people and was doing as well as any place in WV can actually do. I listened to "growth is the only strategy" in my formative and college years and nobody from that side of the issue could explain the town/city I lived besides. Going back, there are no new streets, no new schools, only a few new buildings, and it pretty much looks like I just walked out of the Tardis back into 1960......
Ok have fun with this if you have not seen it. Nothing like complex aero to keep costs down??? This is beyond insane at this point. Too many races and needlessly complex cars. I cannot think of the repair bills with this garbage being signed off. https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/what-is-really-going-on-with-f1s-2026-active-aero-plans/10599611/#comments-block-anchor What is really going on with F1’s 2026 active aero plans Formula 1’s progress towards its 2026 rules package, and especially active aero, was thrust back into the spotlight recently in the wake of some intriguing paddock gossip regarding simulator runs. Jonathan NobleApr 17, 2024, 10:12 AM Upd: Apr 17, 2024, 10:19 AM Evaluation of 2026 aero ideas had left sim drivers experiencing some weird phenomena – including difficulties in spinning out on the straights under acceleration in low-downforce configuration, or being unable to run anywhere near flat out in what should be high-speed corners. The situation hinted at F1’s rule makers potentially being on the backfoot with its preparations for the new rules era, where grand prix racing would be undergoing perhaps its biggest regulatory change ever with all-new engine and chassis. However, as efforts continue to finalise the new car regulations, Autosport has learned more about the reality of those sim stories – and how the drama of the findings were actually part of the plan to prove certain concepts would not work at all. Indeed, rather than F1 and the FIA sharing the alarm that teams found from the sim running, the lessons have actually added clarity to the direction that needs to be taken as grand prix racing moves towards the rules getting signed off in June. Finding out what doesn’t work As part of a much better working relationship between the FIA and teams, a lot of effort in framing future ideas for regulations involves them working together – as happened a lot with the 2022 regulations. After all, the teams are the ones who understand more the competitive demands and performance characteristics of cars, and have at their disposal state-of-the-art simulator and simulation facilities to better future-proof stuff. Fernando Alonso with the Aston Martin F1 Team AMR24 Simulator Photo by: Aston Martin Amid the efforts to sort out the 2026 aero regulations, the FIA has again been assisted by teams in working on what is known as the ‘Fangio’ model – the base outline of the new chassis and aero rules. But there were two key questions that needed answering in the recent simulation work that threw up the stories. The first was what was the minimum downforce level that an F1 car could get away with if the active aero was in its lowest position. And the second was answering a question prompted by one unidentified team. This squad believed the active aero could work with only the rear wing moving – something that F1 and the FIA were never convinced about. To get answers, a work plan was put in place involving three teams. This included a total 1,000 aero runs between them in recent weeks, as well as some simulator work on top to help fine-tune the elements and get the two answers needed. On the first question, a lot of progress was made with aero mapping and development to give the FIA the direction needed to finalise the active aero specifics. And on the second point of not having a moveable front wing, the simulator runs – which included those alarming spins – delivered a definite answer: there was no way active aero could involve just the rear wing. As one source close to the development of the new rules said: “It absolutely confirmed what we thought in the first place. All of the teams said: ‘Yep, you’ve got to adjust the front wing if you adjust the rear wing’. It was no surprise to us.” The simulator runs duly confirmed that F1’s 2026 aero plans will have to include both the front and rear wing moving, and have given a direction for sorting out the aero balance between the two. With the knowledge from the simulator running outlining the minimum wing angle that can be run at the back, allied to the range of adjustment needed at the front, the FIA is well set to sort out the remaining details over the next month or so. How active aero will work - and what of DRS? While some of the technical specifics and regulatory wording still need sorting, it is understood that the basic framework of the active aero has been settled upon now. Whereas when F1 first set out on the idea for active aero there was scope for there being four different states of the wing – which could cover extra downforce for following cars in corners, a normal state, a low-drag state and then a DRS option – things appears to have settled on a much simpler solution. It is understood that the extra downforce element and DRS states have gone. Instead, the active aero will involve the cars having two states – a normal setting for the car as it would appear when stationary, and then a low-drag state where the wing angles come down. The second state is likely to be activated automatically at set zones around the track to help improve top speed – although how this works will have to be incorporated in F1’s Sporting Regulations rather than it being a technical matter. By having active aero zones, the performance of cars can then be adjusted and optimised for each track, as DRS zones are done at present, to make sure that the cars are delivering what’s best for performance and spectacle. While DRS will be gone, that will not mean the end of overtaking opportunities on straights. Instead, a revision to the FIA’s 2026 technical regulations recently outlined a push-to-pass power boost – known as ‘override mode’ – that will allow a driver to deploy additional power up to 355km/h (220.5mph) for an overtake. On course for June sign off Discussions about the 2026 chassis regulations continued at a meeting of F1’s Technical Advisory Committee last week, and sources indicate that the FIA and F1 are on course to hit the end-of-June deadline for the delivery of framework chassis regulations. Some evaluation is also going on to understand if longer term there is a way to make the front wing have more than two states, so it can be better mapped for circuit demands. This would help prevent teams needing to undertake expensive development into aero elasticity that they use at the moment to help flex the wings on the straights to reduce drag.
Via BBC F1 Q and A : https://www.bbc.com/sport/articles/ckr5mnd25nyo Are there too many rules & regulations imposed by the FIA (both car design & racing) and would simplifying them make the sport more exciting? – Alex Over time, a number of designers have suggested that rather than write such restrictive rules, the FIA might be better setting a series of parameters and letting the designers do what they want within them. The reason that does not happen is the fear that one team will get a march on the others and lock in advantage their rivals can’t overturn. You might well argue that is what has happened with Red Bull in the last couple of years, of course. It’s a somewhat romantic idea to free up the rules, but it’s not very likely to happen. Not least because it is somewhat against the trend of modern motorsport. Nor is this a major topic in F1 right now - or indeed for as long as I can remember. The biggest concern among engineers currently is the 2026 rules and what is looking like a bit of a mess. In essence, a couple of years ago the power-unit manufacturers came up with a set of engine rules that created a new engine with a much greater proportion of its power coming from the hybrid elements - up to about 50% rather than the approximately 20% now. But they also took away one of the two means by which the engines regenerate energy, making them much less efficient. This has created a major conundrum for the chassis rules, which are being finalised right now. The issue is that it is proving very difficult to recover sufficient energy for the engines, and moveable aerodynamics to increase speeds on the straights is the likely solution. Even then, they are falling short. Some say that the only way to manage it would be to allow energy recovery from the front axle. But the FIA is resisting this at the moment. The deadline for the rules to be finished is the end of June and right now few engineers are confident a satisfactory solution has been found.
F1 ready to consider different engines from 2030 in push for more noise (motorsport.com) F1 knows how badly they ****ed up with the 2026 generator "engines" and already are planning the engine formula after lol. F1, do everyone a favour and just drop the 2026 rules before it's too late.
A change in the level of the budget cap for the 10 Formula 1 teams is likely for 2026. The proposal is to go to $215 or $220 million a year. That seems like an advantage for the richer teams, but on the other hand, more costs are going to fall under the budget cap. Christian Horner thinks so. https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/279888/budget-cap-in-formula-1-on-the-rocks-will-christmas-soon-fall-under-it.html
So renditions of what the 2026 F1 will look like have come out. Cars will be 30kg lighter(still not enough). Cars will be 200mm shorter (still not enough). Floors definitely look wider, especially in the rear portion of the car.
Obviously those who write the rules don't listen to public opinion. They only take notice of the engineers.
