Printable View
I think the chassis changes are positive.
Cars seem to be able to follow closely for longer than in the past and being narrower should make it a bit harder to defend. I'm not too bothered if the cars are a bit slower in the corners due to reduced downforce, as it's hard to see the difference on TV.
The power unit regulations still need work though.
Quite the pickle, isn't it? 50:50 split with a small battery not able to hold a charge for a full lap, suggests someone got their maths wrong. It would be interesting to see how they resolve this one. I think they would kick their green credentials to the kerb to save face.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Boyd
I've been looking at the regulations here:
https://www.fia.com/system/files/doc...2026-02-27.pdf
The diagram on page C64 shows the limits and, while there is 9MJ recharge available per lap, the battery capacity available is only 4MJ. The actual capacity of the battery will be more than this as they don't last very long if they are cycled from 0 to 100%. If we assume they cycle the battery between 20% & 80% then the actual capacity of the battery will be around 6.7MJ.
They've got 4MJ capacity that they can discharge as much as they like but they can only put 9MJ back in per lap so the temptation is going to be to take 4MJ out and then try to top the battery up wherever they can before taking out what they've just put back until they reach the 9MJ charge limit.
I wonder, somewhat counter intuitively, if the solution is to reduce the 4MJ battery capacity limit. OK - there will be less energy to deploy so the cars will be slower but they'll spend less time recharging so we'll see less of the "clipping" modes that hamper straight line speed. It might make for closer racing without the hazardous speed differentials that are currently possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Boyd
That is one of the suggestions presented to the FIA. Someone worked out a 36:64 split instead of the current 50:50 split. Unfortunately, a battery-related change would result in a sizeable drop in overall speed, which would move the performance of F1 cars towards that of the F2 cars, which would make us ask what progress do these 2026 regulations bring to modern-day F1. Slower F1 is not progress.
But then, the FIA have a bigger issue relating to safety and the risk of fatality from the closing speed differential between the cars with a good battery charge and those that have run out of battery. On tracks lined with unforgivable armco barriers, such as the street circuits, a Bearman-like situation may have a much more serious outcome. The question of why the battery is unable to provide power over a full lap comes about again.
The FIA's dilemma is that increasing fuel flow to increase ICE power output and reducing battery power dependency defeats two of their aspirations in this regulation. The biofuel is stupendously expensive; increased fuel flow would increase teams' spending. It would also increase the carbon footprint for this season.
Not mentioned much is the issue of AI software deciding to boost power on behalf of the drivers. The machine learning software are quite immature in their learning so they make poor decisions, which threaten the safety of drivers or sap performance in a crippling way.
It would be better in 2027, at the moment it is looking like a fancy dogs diner.
nm2
Looks like FIA is panicking.
https://www.motorsportweek.com/2026/...sroads-crisis/Quote:
F1 has now reached that dangerous tipping point. Fans are disenfranchised, and the regulations’ beneficiaries are attempting to justify keeping them as they are amid overwhelming criticism and disbelief following Bearman’s crash. The sport has reached a crossroads. It now faces a choice on multiple fronts to rectify stupid errors entirely of its own making.
https://www.gpfans.com/en/f1-news/10...fying-engines/Quote:
Key stakeholders in Formula 1, including team technical chiefs and engine manufacturer representatives, will meet with FIA leadership on April 9 for a crucial discussion according to reports.
The changes they are looking at possibly is:
Most Likely F1 Changes
1. Reduce total deployable electrical energy per lap to limit extreme speed differences
2. Smooth or standardize energy deployment so cars don’t suddenly gain/lose large speed mid-lap
3. Adjust qualifying rules so drivers can run closer to flat-out (less energy management impact)
4. Increase or rebalance energy deployment on straights to prevent cars “running out” before braking zones
5. Simplify energy management systems to reduce complexity for drivers and teams
6. Consider long-term engine changes (2027+) to shift balance toward more combustion and less electric power
NM
In relation to what???Quote:
Originally Posted by F1nKS
Obviously , he just moved to New Mexico .Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitrodaze
I don't understand.
nm2 - is that square nanometers?
NM - Newton Maxwells???
NM = No MessageQuote:
Originally Posted by Nitrodaze
This board sometimes creates double posts if you go back and edit a post. That was the case here so I edited the post with "NM" and "NM2" for the 2nd double posts.
Ok then, so not New MexicoQuote:
Originally Posted by F1nKS
Yep l have had that problem many times.
Apparently, the FIA meeting on the 9th did not result in a concrete solution to the problems. Once again, it is said to have been postponed to after the Miami GP. Interestingly, Miami is a street circuit lined with punishing armco and other hard barriers. As such, it would be an interesting test case for what racing would look like this season on street circuits. It is a questionable gamble that injury or fatality would not occur at this race.