Cars, Bahrain International Circuit, 2024 pre-season test

F1’s 2026 cars will have 1,000 horsepower, less downforce and weight – Symonds

Formula 1

Posted on

| Written by

Formula 1’s chief technical officer has revealed new details of the biggest overhaul of the series’ regulations in a decade.

The championship will introduce a new engine formula in 2026, its first such change in 12 years. The new power units will generate a greater proportion of their power electrically.

This has prompted concerns they may not be as powerful as the current V6 hybrid turbos and that drivers may suffer excessive turbo lag in power delivery. However F1’s chief technical officer Pat Symonds says these concerns have been addressed.

“They will be, at the moment, cars with electrical power fully delivering 900 horsepower,” he told the official F1 channel. “We’re going to be over 1,000 horsepower with the ’26 car, [we] want more of it coming from the electric motor.

“At the moment turbo lag does not exist on these cars because we have an electric motor on the turbo, that’s going. [But] turbo lag is not what it used to be in the old days.”

The changes to the engine formula will be accompanied by revised chassis regulations. This follows the last major rules update in 2022, which was intended to aid overtaking.

Symonds said there is more work to do in this area, and F1 intends to reduce the weight of the cars, which many drivers have said makes it hard for them to race closely in the current machines.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

“We do want to reduce the downforce on the car,” said Symonds. “Part of the reason why the cars are so heavy is because they’re having to deal with so much load, so they’ll slide a little bit more.

Pat Symonds
Next generation of cars will show ‘drivers are the heroes’
“I think what it will do is it will put a little bit more emphasis on the driver. That’s an important thing. It’s the drivers who are the heroes, they’re the supermen that we want to promote. So I think things are going in the right direction there.”

Several new power unit manufacturers have already confirmed they will enter F1 in 2026. Audi will enter for the first time while Ford and Honda will return. Cadillac has also said it intends to enter in 2028. Symonds said the key to attracting new entrants has been making F1 more affordable yet also technologically relevant.

“It’s technology at a sensible cost,” he said. “We talk a lot about the the 2022 car and how it’s improved racing and all the things we did. But the budget cap doesn’t really get the medals it deserves because the budget cap is fundamental to the future of Formula 1.

“My last team was Williams, where we were existing on a shoestring. And in fact, not long after I left Williams, it didn’t exist on a shoestring. They had to sell and they weren’t alone. Teams were really struggling to survive.

“Over the course of seven years, we’ve turned these teams into all being worth half a billion dollars and that’s pretty impressive. And a large part of that is because of the budget cap.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

“Now, when you talk about the manufacturers, they’re saying ‘yeah, actually now this is interesting technology and it’s not at a ridiculous price’. We’re not having to put hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars into it, but we can exploit the areas that are of interest to us.”

Although the 2026 power units will be less sophisticated than the current ones in some respects, following the removal of the MGU-H, Symonds believes they will still offer useful research opportunities for car manufacturers.

“Electric motor technology, battery cells – battery cell technology is fascinating,” he said. “People think of lithium ion batteries or lithium ion battery. It’s not. It’s like saying a metal is a metal: Is it steel, is it aluminium, is it magnesium? There are so many different chemistries out there for batteries and the really interesting ones are being exploited in Formula 1. So there’s still plenty of technology there for the manufacturers.”

While F1 approved the new engine regulations for 2026 two years ago, the chassis rules are yet to be finalised. Teams are banned from working on their 2026 designs until next year.

Become a RaceFans Supporter

RaceFans is run thanks in part to the generous support of its readers. By contributing £1 per month or £12 per year (or the same in whichever currency you use) you can help cover the costs of creating, hosting and developing RaceFans today and in the future.

Become a RaceFans Supporter today and browse the site ad-free. Sign up or find out more via the links below:

Formula 1

Browse all Formula 1 articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

77 comments on “F1’s 2026 cars will have 1,000 horsepower, less downforce and weight – Symonds”

  1. they’ll slide a little bit more

    Get some proper tyres then!

    1. notagrumpyfan
      27th March 2024, 18:31

      It’s the drivers who are the heroes

      Leave the slippery tyres :P

      1. I want the tires to be more grippy but I could live with slippery as long as they last longer. I want to see them DRIVE, not conserve tyres.
        Frankly, if they were serious about reducing the weight, they would go back to the 13″ tyres because all that unsprung weight at each corner is killing the performance and how well they can corner as they try and pass each other. But that ship has sailed because someone convinced them that the taller tyres/tires “look better and more like road cars”. Screw that…I don’t want a Prius. I want a Formula 1 car that is unique and high performance.

        They should have made them a foot narrower and 3 feet shorter. Why are they wimping around with a few cm’s here and there and 50kg weight savings? They should drop the weight by 100kg, whatever it takes.

        I was the first one calling for more electric power back when it was unique and cool new tech. Now we have Formula E for that. They should go back to screaming V10’s. That would reduce the weight a great deal and let us see who the DRIVERS are.
        Face it, battery tech is progressing so quickly now that a 4 wheel drive Formula E car will be able to beat an F1 car in about 7-8 years. They need to decide if they’re going to make F1 pure and keep it that way…or succumb to merging with Formula E in 10-12 years.

      2. Well the tires are very grippy so if the driver pushes it destroys them. We need tire bricks but then the pilots start complaining of lack of grip.

  2. I’m excited to see and hear the new cars, and see what difference the new regs make to the quality of racing and the pecking order of the grid. The racing hasn’t been spectacular recently but I’m hopefully we’ll see some gains from 2026. I think the sport definitely needs it.

    Of course, the more successful and financially-stable teams have a better chance of making the new regs work for them. I’m hopeful it’ll increase the chances of different drivers or teams taking points or podiums. The status quo at the moment isn’t entirely thrilling.

  3. Sounds a bit like a marketing slur..

    In a clarson voice : “they will have a million horsepower and be more electric!!!”

    But what kind of engine is there? 3 cylinders on bio-diesel? No details were given other than the marketing stuff

    1. But what kind of engine is there? 3 cylinders on bio-diesel? No details were given other than the marketing stuff

      It is a 1.6L V6 turbo with MGU-K

    2. The 2026 power-unit regulations have been out for a while if you want more details on how the cars will be powered.

    3. Batterie just store energy made by the ICE. So smaller ICE, less speed.

      1. Not really. The batteries store energy created under braking. I guess that’s “indirectly” from the ICE as that is where the initial acceleration/energy comes from.
        But in today’s engines, the MGU-H currently charges the batteries. With the new, 2026 engines, it only comes from braking. Of course I don’t know if they let them charge the batteries on the starting line but that would only last for an acceleration or two anyway and from then on, it’s all about brake regeneration.

    4. He obviously drank the Koolaid: “Over the course of seven years, we’ve turned these teams into all being worth half a billion dollars and that’s pretty impressive. And a large part of that is because of the budget cap.”

      Short memory to only go as far back as the period when Williams was struggling and had to sell. Nothing to do with bad management, it was just the lack of budget cap /s

  4. Bring back V8’s.

    1. Nah, bring back the V-10’s.

      1. Nah, bring back “let each team decide how many cylinders they want”!

      2. Agreed. Bring back the V10’s and get rid of the electric bits. Formula E has that covered so why try to imitate that portion now. That’s like going back to horse racing and trying to put batteries on them to make them run faster LOL

  5. 2009: we need less downforce!
    2017: we need much more downforce!
    2022: we need different downforce!
    2026: we need less downforce!

    F1’s eternal rollercoaster.

    1. If nothing else, these Libery-affiliated folks like Patrick ‘Singapore’ Symonds should not be brought back for more given how exceptionally poor the 2022 cars have turned out.

      It’s high time to put the FIA back in charge of the cars and let the TV people focus on making compelling TV.

  6. notagrumpyfan
    27th March 2024, 19:02

    Part of the reason why the cars are so heavy is because they’re having to deal with so much load

    Come again?

    1. ie, the drivers are too fat LOL

    2. All safety features, batteries, electric motors makes the car very heavy. Just reduce dimensiones by 1m lenght 0.20m wide will reduce weight also.

      1. notagrumpyfan
        28th March 2024, 8:20

        But he is talking about ‘load’, I assume ‘downforce load’.
        Not sure how that links to heavier cars.

        PS the batteries and MGU’s weigh less (at the start) than the extra fuel you would need without the hybrid components.

    3. Size and aero loads mean the cars are heavy and press down on their suspension with a lot of force. That in terms means beefier suspension, bigger brakes (more weight), stronger tyre construction etc. It’s a vicious circle..

      So making cars smaller, lighter and having less downforce will help to run lighter cars with more emphasis on the skill of the driver and possibly better racing (if the reduction of downforce is done up top the wake behind the car will be less prominent and less disturbing for following cars.)

      1. If they were genuine in their attempts to reduce overall car weight, they would just reduce the minimum weight limit. I’m sure the teams would find ways to comply with the safety regulations and loads with lower weights. So it just sounds to me like nonsense really.

      2. I think Aero loading adds very little to weight gain. But batteries, generators copper wiring and electric motors are heavy. I dont buy the argument that hybrid technology is lighter than extra fuel, just look at the toyota pruis verses toyota corrolla as an example.

        1. The Prius weighs so much because Toyota still insists on 1990’s battery tech, they don’t use any lithium type batteries and that’s the majority of the weight.
          The 2026 motor and batteries can only weigh 30kg where as the fuel in the old pre-hybrid days they would run through 170-180kg of fuel during the race, including all the refueling, etc. So the motor and batteries really are lighter to start a race. Without them, you could always bring back refueling and that would make the cars lighter without hybrid stuff, from start to finish. I’m kind of in favor of that :)

  7. Aren’t the batteries and the electric motor heavier than the ICE? I also thought one of the initiatives are to reduce the weight

    1. Not really & some Mercedes engineer once implied the battery could even remain at a similar weight.
      Anyway, the other aspects, mainly reduced car length & width dimensions will definitely have a greater overall impact than battery size.

      1. 95-130 kg vs 145/150 kg for the hybrid.

        also refuelling meant the fuel weight was substantially less. its debatable whether the tires were also better back in the day.

        reason why cars are faster are due to better aero and the turbo.

        also the 10-13 million for the hybrid vs 160k at most in 2008 for a v8. the new formula is a scam. good teams should have good mechanics who can strip an engine apart and rebuild them when needed not have to pay 50x for an engine that lasts 8 or 9 races.

        1. @pcxmac Fuel is never included in the overall minimum weight, so what refuelling meant was that fuel tanks were smaller & thus physically lighter.

          1. of course they were, but they also ran less fuel, so they were lighter and faster overall. ~45kg instead of 130kg is a huge time delta per lap. The tanks probably changed, what 5-10kg, maybe a little more for the pumps and baffles ? Not as much as the fuel diff.

        2. Where did you get the 145/150kg number for the hybrid? The 2026 specs limit the electric motor to 16kg and the batteries to 20kg? Not arguing, just trying to understand if I’m missing something.

          1. thats the contemporary Power Unit vs 2008 ICE, total weight. I am assuming the gear box on both of those items is not counted. Of course there was no turbo, battery, ERS, anything on those motors. But they were also more than 50x less expensive.

            Imagine how much more leverage the smaller teams would have if they didn’t ban testing and let them run the cheaper motors and made the difference up with hiring more mechanics to rebuild motors/gear boxes every race, which is not a horrible thing, plus it employs more people.

            The power unit scheme is a scam which has made guys like Wolff hundreds of millions of dollars while it has sabotaged and destroyed teams like Williams, Renault, etc…

    2. I guess this is why they have to reduce the downforce. If the car is under less load then they can bring the minimum weight down as it doesn’t have to be as strong? Otherwise, adding more electrical power would add weight. I suppose the 1,000 horsepower only lasts as long as the charge? I wonder how the average sustained power output will compare to previous cars?

  8. Sounds great.

    I give it a season and then one team will be dominant, as always!

    1. Amwise man once said, “ When there is a paradigm shift, everyone starts back at zero.” So , ya, once the new rules come in, I too think one team will dominate until the others catch up. It was OK for Mercedes or Ferrari to dominate, but a drink company, cant have that.

      1. Quote was by Joel Barker.

  9. Less downforce than presently or next year, I presume, but I’m okay with less per se as long as lap times would at least be similar to the current aero era & faster than anything pre-2017.
    Removing all hybrid stuff would give even more weight reduction flexibility, though, especially as a wholly sustainable fuel type effectively nullifies the need for hybrid technology, so not going for the WRC-style route in this regard seems like a missed opportunity & likewise, not going for a slightly smaller wheel rim size, after all, albeit reduced car dimensions, MGU-H removal, & possibly smaller fuel tank size, have a greater overall impact, though, especially the dimension aspect.

    1. notagrumpyfan
      27th March 2024, 21:08

      especially as a wholly sustainable fuel type effectively nullifies the need for hybrid technology

      It seems you don’t understand sustainability nor efficiency.
      Even sustainable fuels have an impact on the environment, some are not really sustainable and for others you only need to understand the concept of opportunity costs.
      And a hybrid engine is more efficient than a non hybrid (c.p.). Thus it’s better to get the maximum effective energy out of any type of fuel you’re using, otherwise you hamper yourself with double the fuel load at the start, which will never offset the hybrid elements you ditched.

      1. Coventry Climax
        28th March 2024, 3:17

        I am sorry to say I think you failed your automotive engineering exams.

        The word sustainable is a scam. It’s definition -basically, doing things indefinitely without impact- is misused for commercial reasons, degrading the full, actual meaning. Especially since F1 claims to go using ‘100% sustainable fuel’. Fish or Timber e.g., are considered to be ‘Sustainable Yields’; ‘crops’ that renew themselves. Well, just look at how well all that’s doing worldwide.

        There simply cannot be such a thing with 8 billion+ sapiens needing energy in the forms of food, housing, heating, cooling, transportation and whatnot. Closest would be the sun, but apart from sunrays not being very invogorating unless you’re a plant, it would get crowded in the temperate areas of our planet if we didn’t do anything with it, other than just baske in it. (Sun is also the cause for wind and precipitation, should you think I omitted wind and hydro.) The moon would be another sustainable one, being the cause for tidal motion, though insufficient for what we use these days. They’ve made progress with fusion, but using any of the other nuclear variants is much like building an ever bigger bomb and keep sitting on it.
        The sun is our best chance, as it gives us an amount of energy every hour that is equal to what is used globally per year (2018 actually, but it is still growing at some 1 to 2 % per year. Data by NASA).

        You’re wrong when you say ‘some’ sustainable fuels are not really sustainable, as actually, none of them are.
        The F1 claim of going to use ‘100% sustainable fuel’ is a downright lie.

        Then, there is no such thing as a hybrid engine, although everybody uses the name. It’s the use of multiple types of engines in a means of transportation that make the resulting combination called a hybrid vehicle. Usually, it’s an ICE and one or more electric motors. Yes, electric motors are the most efficient we know; theoretically close to 100%: Energy in (nearly) equals energy out. For ICE’s (Otto cycle) though, the theoretical maximum efficiency is close to 40%. The hybrid vehicle commonly also sports energy recovery components. Kinetic energy is recovered when braking, and deployed again when accelerating, as that’s the phase that’s most energy consuming. From the 60% inefficiency with the Otto cycle though, practically all is lost as heat. (Cooling and exhaust gases, friction of bearings, gearbox, brakes and tyres internally as well as by road contact.) Some of that is used to drive a traditional turbo, but that’s not a fuel saving device to begin with, although it does very slightly improve overall efficiency. For F1, that’s apparently to be aided by electromotors(!), to keep the turbo lag at bay.
        With the vast majority of the energy lost in the form of heat, F1 decided to not recuperate that any longer when it ditched the MGU-H. Silly choice, to say the least, as it had/has the most potention. Not that it was exceptionally efficient at it’s task, but on the other hand, that means there was still plenty of opportunity for development and improvement.

        So the question is, how much energy is actually recovered by the MGU-K? The concerns currently are that they will have to run the engine on parts of the circuit, solely for the purpose of recharging the batteries, meaning it’s only for reasons of being able to say they use electric energy, while omitting to tell they burnt fuel for it. I would call that commercial blah. (Calling the batteries an Energy Store, by the way, is also rather silly, as a fuel tank actually performs the exact same function.)
        Anyway, as the 60% lost is mostly heat, and nothing much is done with that, you can only recuperate from the (max) 40% that was actually converted to motion. I do not know what percentage of recovery they achieve with the MGU-K, nor will F1 ever tell us, just like they will never tell us how efficient exactly “the most efficient power units ever” that they advertise, actually are – or are claimed to be.

        So the question actually boils down to how much fuel can you save, compared to the actual 2026 version, by running a car that is otherwise the same in performance, but has no MGU-K and it’s associated ‘hybrid’ components, but -therefor- weighs a couple 100 kg’s less. (approx. 600 kg over the years 1995 to 2008, compared to the nearly 800 nowadays.)
        Quick and dirty calculation to get at least some insight: With Kinetic Energy being 0.5*m*v2, the difference in Kinetic energy at 320 kmph (approx 90 mps), between those cars, on a single, straight stretch, is about 25%. Has to come from somewhere, so that means the heavier car requires 25% more energy to speed up to that 320kmph, only to then have the MGU-K recover a very theoretical max 40% of the total. My estimate is, that a 10 to 15% recovery is quite generous already: It’s not like they don’t use their brakes at all anymore. That means about only half of the extra energy is recuperated.
        So, I’d say that’s a lost cause for the MGU-K only hybrid version, unless the 200kg weight difference is largely, if not fully solved.
        Plus, think of how much more nimble the lighter cars would be and how that would give you much more enjoyable racing to look at.
        If motorracing means being as fast as you can around a circuit at all times, that’s basically an objective of running a car at maximum inefficiency. Some say it only means finishing before the competition does, though.
        F1 (motorracing in general) and sustainability just don’t go together, and certainly not the way they would like you to think it does. It’s just commerce.

        1. @Coventry Climax sir this is a Wendy’s

        2. notagrumpyfan
          28th March 2024, 8:50

          Dear Coventry Climax,
          Why do you start with a nasty comment, and then confirming what I said?
          You seem to agree with me.

          You could’ve asked me why I used the word ‘some’ in my reference to sustainable!
          Let me explain: we generally consider Sun, Wind, Waves, and Hydro as sustainable. I think that is fair (but still not 100% correct) as harvesting energy from those sources has almost no impact on our climate.
          Growing crops for hydrocarbons and calling it sustainable is really questionable. Why not grow food or a forest instead? And oil is also nothing else than growing crops, but then millions of years ago. And few consider oil sustainable (I oversimplified it here).

          All quite complex, and interestingly they probably won’t teach you all of that at automotive engineering school.

          1. Coventry Climax
            28th March 2024, 10:30

            Dear notagrumpyfan,

            I do not confirm or agree with what you said at all
            Try reading what I wrote again and right to the end?

            I basically say that if F1 were to use 100% sustainable fuel (which does not exist) there’d be no point anymore to use hybrid components. That’s just what @jerejj said, and I confirm that, where you claim he has a misunderstanding of some concepts.

            Where you claim:

            And a hybrid engine is more efficient than a non hybrid (c.p.). Thus it’s better to get the maximum effective energy out of any type of fuel you’re using, otherwise you hamper yourself with double the fuel load at the start, which will never offset the hybrid elements you ditched.

            I prove you wrong where you say you say ‘thus it’s better’ and it ‘would never offset the hybrid elements you ditched’.
            So I support the idea of ditching the hybrid concept in favour of much lighter cars, just like @jerejj said, where you do not, while claiming there’s some sort of misunderstanding the concepts of sustainability and efficiency.

            Your comment is on three points; ‘sustainable’, ‘efficiency’ and ‘misunderstanding’, and we ‘agree’ on none of them.
            Maybe that’s where the ‘nasty’ comment came from, being accused of misunderstanding, by untrue ‘arguments’?

          2. notagrumpyfan
            28th March 2024, 13:06

            Indeed I didn’t read to the end, too long.
            But based on this reply:
            A) on sustainable fuel: Even if it existed, there are better ways to use it than on an inefficient IC process wasting heat. I assumed you would understand the concept of ‘opportunity costs’.
            B) on the efficiency:
            The extra fuel you need when ditching the hybrid components is heavier than the hybrid components.
            It needs the c.p. because of course it’s at the start of the race rather than at the end, it is to get the same power, etc etc.
            I challenge you to find the weight of the hybrid components. Now calculate the extra kgs of fuel you need if you didn’t have them. And then you need to get the extra kgs of a more powerful ICU. It doesn’t work out for F1. Too much start stop to run efficiently with only an ICU.
            You did not prove me wrong at all!

          3. Coventry Climax
            28th March 2024, 16:36

            1995 – 2008: 595 kg
            2009: 595 – 605 kg + 10 kg for (? Nothing officially for hybrid)
            2010: 605 – 620 kg + 15 kg for (? Nothing officially for hybrid, unless it was a ‘preparation scheme’ to bring up the weight for hybrid gradually.)
            2011: 620 – 640 kg + 20 kg for KERS
            2014: 640 – 690 kg + 48 kg for 1.6 V6 Turbo Hybrid
            2017: 702 – 728 kg + 26 kg for wider tyres
            2018: 728 – 734 kg + 7 kg for Halo

            2022: 752 – 795 kg + 43 kg because of raised minimums: PU minimum now 150 kg, of which: MGU-K min. 7 kg, MGU-H min. 4 kg, ES min. 20 kg. 18″ rims, larger tyres & wheelcovers: +2.5 kg each front, +3.0 each rear, so +11 kg total for larger rims % tyres plus wheelcovers.
            2023: 795 – 798 kg + 3kg, forget what nonsens it was for, probably ‘to make the playing field more even’.

            So I count an increase in weight of 798-620 = 178 kg, during the hybrid era, most of it accounted for above, and an increase of 798 – 595 = 203 kg since 2008, that’s a weight increase of nearly 35% since 2008.
            A 1000 L of gasoline weighs about 720 Kg (depending on temperature), which means that 178 kg of weight equals about 250 liters of fuel. 200 liters was the max allowed per race, right?
            Just the hybrid stuff would cover those 200 liters alright.

          4. notagrumpyfan
            29th March 2024, 8:57

            Coventry Climax, you’re close but still so far off.
            Most of the car weight increase during the hybrid area was for safety reasons, wheels and car sizes.
            The pure hybrid elements MGU’s, ES are close to the 31kg you referred to above.
            31kg (+28%) of extra fuel would not get a 1.6L V6 without hybrid to the finish line at any reasonable speed.
            But of course you burn off the fuel and could argue that you have 62kg (+56%) to play with. Fair point, and that would cover the loss in thermal efficiency. But you are still stuck with a less powerful PU, and need to invest a big chunk of the 31kg in extra hardware. And even then you don’t have the same power flexibility you need in start-stop circuit racing.

            I wish they would open the PU rules, without funny equivalence regulation, and we’ll see what all team choose.

          5. Coventry Climax
            29th March 2024, 13:28

            You forget there’s a trade off here: Heavier cars require more energy to start and stop, and more downforce to be dragged around a corner at speed. And mind you, there’s no linear relationships there.
            Heavier cars require sturdier, meaning heavier, safety measures. Slam a feather into concrete and a brick, at the same speeds, and watch the difference.
            More components require more space to be housed, which means bigger and heavier cars.

            I’ll keep it short for you: There’s no way to say it’s just the hybrid components and just 31 kg; it’s all related.

            The longer story is a couple of years of decent study which requires you to read and understand long and difficult texts before forming an opinion, but that’s not your cup of tea, by your own words.
            Sorry, couldn’t resist.

            I do agree on your wish to see the rules opened up. But I guarantee you, the first thing you’ll see happen, is lighter cars.

          6. notagrumpyfan
            31st March 2024, 13:53

            You forget there’s a trade off here: Heavier cars require more energy to start and stop, and more downforce to be dragged around a corner at speed.

            As I explained you above, a hybrid car is not heavier! The extra fuel at the start alone is more than the weight of the hybrid elements. Also it does not need more space either as the hybrid components are more compact than the increased fuel tank.
            And if you want to be competitive with the non-hybrid car you need a bigger/heavier ICU or multiple turbos. Thus most of the 31kg win for a non-hybrid will be re-invested in other hardware, thus no room for extra fuel.

            PS you seem as stubborn as some of my (university) students initially are. Luckily I can spend more time with them and teach them to keep an open mind and base their opinion on facts. Both wise lessons for you as well :P

      2. notagrumpyfan Tell that to WRC manufacturers.

        1. notagrumpyfan
          28th March 2024, 8:52

          I’m telling you, as you made the incorrect assumption/statement!

          1. Coventry Climax
            28th March 2024, 10:34

            you made the incorrect assumption/statement!

            Oh dear.
            Here’s another invitation to you, to fully read my comment above.

  10. Bring back refuelling and teams designing at least some part of the car!

    1. With most of the energy used being electric there’ll be very little petrol needed for refueling.

      1. Well, they can top the car up anyway, and give the driver a ham and cheese toastie, that they have to finish before leaving the pits. Add a drink to that and perhaps Kimi will return.

        1. Sure, they can plug the car in and that’ll give them time for a three course meal and a snooze.

    2. An Sionnach Refuelling was detrimental to on-track overtaking, so I’ve never missed that aspect once since 2010, not to mention synthetic fuel type gives even less reason for in-race refuelling anyway.

      1. There’s less scope for strategy these days. You’ve got to run two tyre compounds, even one or all of them are unsuitable. That’s a contrivance. Other than that, there’s nothing and the cars are very heavy at the start. Combined with the artificially poor tyres, the drivers often spend much of their time in conservation mode and not racing.

        1. Blah, just stop, An, stop. We’ve had hundreds of discussions about refuelling on this forum when it got banned. And it was a consensus that refuelling was bad. Just go there and read the arguments, there is no necessity to try to advocate for refuelling anew as if we hadn’t already dismissed any claims of it being good for racing. The verdicts is done long time ago and you would’ve agreed with it if only you went over the literature.

  11. here’s a guideline: make them small enough so they can actually overtake in Monaco, and then adapt everything else from there

    1. Love that idea, though Monaco would be a bit of a challenge for an upholstered rollerskate.

    2. Even the smaller cars of yester-year struggled to overtake at Monaco.

      1. @royal-spark Indeed, which people always seem to forget.
        Size ultimately doesn’t matter in Monaco any more than anything else.

    3. Just to make things clear – the size as of the cars was never a problem for overtaking, even a Monaco, it’s just the cars’ length that is.
      Overtaking is made harder when:
      – you can’t follow the preceding car closely enough
      – the cars’ braking distances are too short to make a difference by braking later than the car ahead
      – the cars are too long for the difference in braking distances cause enough of a change in relative positions of the cars

      And just to the bunk the old myth: it’s the length of the cars, not the width, which makes overtaking more difficult. I hate it every time FIA wants to make F1 narrower.

  12. “My last team was Williams, where we were existing on a shoestring. And in fact, not long after I left Williams, it didn’t exist on a shoestring. They had to sell and they weren’t alone. Teams were really struggling to survive. Over the course of seven years, we’ve turned these teams into all being worth half a billion dollars and that’s pretty impressive. “

    The same Williams that are running a pay driver that they themselves, don’t believe stands a chance of winning any points? You know… the team who left their pay driver out of the last race because their proper driver crashed and they hadn’t managed to build a spare car…? Yeah, it sounds like their fortunes have turned right around!

    1. But it’s Williams, that great old proper British team! Can’t have then being called out for being unfit to be in F1.

      The most valuable thing these teams have, other than Ferrari which is in a different league, is their spot on the grid that gives then a share of the $1.2 billion annual payout. That’s all there is to it, not the ‘facilities’ or the personnel, which in 7/10 cases isn’t capable of being competitive for wins anyway.

      Is that “worth” half a billion? Well, nobody is buying so… no.

      1. But, but…

        This from Williams 4 years ago!

        …will secure the long-term future of Williams at the pinnacle of motorsport.

        we wanted to find a partner who shared the same passion and values, who recognised the team’s potential and who could unlock its power. In Dorilton we know we have found exactly that.
        Surely they’re all over it now?

        The sale ensures the team’s survival but most importantly will provide a path to success

        We also recognise the world class facilities at Grove and confirm that there are no plans to relocate

  13. Increasingly energy dense batteries will mean much smaller petrol engines, mainly there for drama, noise, and excitement like pistons and valve damage.

  14. I read somewhere on an internet that the proposed change to 16 inch wheels has been abandoned (in part thansk to Pirelli).

    I doubt the ’26 cars will be much lighter now.

    1. It is not so much the diameter of the wheel that is the problem, it is the diameter off the tire. Lower profile tires reduce the sideways scrubbing of a tall tire mounted on a small diameter wheel. Low profile tires on a 16 inch would lead to increased tire wear simply due to the extra rotations each wheel has to make. 16 inch wheels make it more difficult to fit brake rotors, calipers and cooling ducts. Mind you Newey would probably go back to an inboard brake design.

  15. I don’t think weight is as big an issue compared to size.
    800kg is still really light for a car. Sure, it’s not 500kg like it used to be when the cars were twitchy.
    But they are the same length as a Cadillac Escalade.

    The length of the car also affects the weight. There is a lot of structural weight tied up in getting the nose cone to extend out to that stupid arrow shaped front wing. That shape serves no purpose other than making the car look like a 9 year old boy’s drawing.

    Get the length and width under control. Give the engineers doing the packaging some real challenges. The fact that “zero sidepods” is even a design possibility shows that they have it too easy. If they have a smaller footprint to package things in, they will make to make compromises about putting things higher up and outboard from the centreline of the car.

    1. Correct me if I’m wrong, but AFAIK Formula E cars are heavier than F1 counterparts, but they look much more agile around the circuit. Just look at them around the Monaco hairpin compared to F1 boats.

      1. Formula E Gen3 cars are heavier than current F1 cars (840kg vs 798kg, with drivers). But crucially Formula E cars do not then need to add 110kg of fuel. So it’s a bit of a toss up depending on which lap of the race the cars are in.

      2. FE more agile? they look like bricks when cornering. Might be the grooved tires, but they seem quite slow around fast corners, definitely not in the same category as F1.

        1. Might be the grooved tires, but they seem quite slow around fast corners, definitely not in the same category as F1.

          This was the main reason for the 2017 changes; the 2014 cars were quite slow in the corners, but insanely quick on the straights (Bottas hit 378 km/h in Baku!). This wasn’t considered appealing by many. Obviously at the time others noted that bringing back a lot of (upper body) downforce would have negative effects, but given how poor the V6 were received it seems F1 was convinced it had to ‘do something’.

  16. Dreadful perspective even by the sound of what is nothing but F1’s marketing.

    Here’s a suggestion: switch to spec engines (saves money spending wise ) that everyone can pay for branding with their own preferred name and all boxes (money) are ticked. If you mind technological progress allow multiple tyre manufacturers and thus even have that cost for R&D out-sourced (money talking again).

  17. look at the numbers presented last weekend, 70% of the track is spent at full throttle, and its similar at other track depending on layout, its more like mx5 cup :). I really wish that could change a bit in the new regulations, just a bit more of a driving challenge, to introduce some kind of variability, mistakes etc

  18. It will have 1000hp for 22 seconds per lap..and you have to lift on the straights to regen. Fun…

  19. No doubt it will be a failure like most times they change the formula.

Comments are closed.