BROKEN BEFORE IT'S EVEN IN? Opinions on the 'Undriveable' 2026 F1 Cars
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 кві 2024
- So, the teams have had access to a basic idea version of the proposed regulations for 2026 that use active aero. Only to find out that this causes the cars to be totally undriveable and they produce three times the amount of aero imbalance as there currently is with just running DRS.
So with no new engine regulations signed off, and issues already with the proposed new car, could it be that come 2026 the teams won't have been able to properly put something together that causes an S Show?
Let's have a look...
Enjoy! And remember to like and subscribe for more!
Thumbnail image: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Cars: racesimstudio.sellfy.store/
AFFILIATES:
F1 Store: f1.pxf.io/n19my9
Mick's Garage: www.micksgarage.com/home?ref=...
-----
Wikipedia images used under the following CC Licenses:
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Flickr images used under the following CC Licenses:
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
------
Business enquiries: amsimracing@gmail.com
Patreon: www.patreon.com/aidanmillward
Discord: / discord
Instagram: amillward67
Twitter: Aidan_Millward
Steam: AdmiralLaWind
----
CPU: Ryzen 5 5600 @3.7gHz
Motherboard: MSI B450 Mortar Micro ATX
RAM: Corsair Vengeance 2x 8gb @ 3000mHz
GPU: nVidia GeForce RTX 3060
Editing Software: Sony Vegas 14 Steam Edition
Wheel: Simucube 2 Pro - Cube Controls Formula Pro Rim/DIY Ascher D Shape Rim
Pedals: Heusinkveld Sprints - Ігри
Used Assetto Corsa for a video last week, and it's fine.
Use it today and it does not want to open. Anyone else having issues with Steam lately? Cos I've had to run integrity checks on a LOT of my Steam apps this week...
Not at all here but I haven't played anything more intensive than PES 2021 lately. Probably it was a Windows Update bungling everything up.
CS2 also needed integrity check for Workshop items
Are you on a hard-drive or ssd? If hd your disk might be about to fail.
Run it from content manager not directly from steam. Plus put it on a new drive.
@@demonicsquid7217 … so what I’ve been doing for the last six years?
FIA: "Screw it, no one will dominate. Built a shitbox? We don’t care!"
Liberty Media: continues to count cash with Arab Money from GTAIV playing in the background.
I see you are a man of culture as well.
@@CyanRooper if Yusuf Amir ran F1 it would at least be more interesting, and gold plated.
@@Truenofan86 As it is impossible for F1 to be less interesting than it is now Yusuf Amir has a pretty low bar to work with
It wasn't just Liberty. The Bernie/Todt era brought in this hybrid trash. And Liberty continue to allow big auto virtue signalling to rule the regs.
"Shitbox". Yeah. If F1 never outlawed some of the techs they'd be hovering over the ground doing 3000 mph and pulling 15 G's. At some point it's important to take away tech for the good of the sport.
The more I hear about the 2026 rules, I just want to forget F1 and want a new pinnacle of motorsports. Maybe hypercars running 1.5 hour short races.
there already are series better than formula 1, so much so that i consider them the greatest on the planet. here they are:
IndyCar, IMSA weathertech, super formula, and SUPER GT.
The whole depowering the engines at top speed on the straights thing is the sport jumping the shark gimmick if they go through with it. It's just so ridiculous and anything but "the top engineering competition". It sounds like the active aero is meant to be an autonomous system rather than something the driver controls which they apparently are very upset with.
Smaller card, less prescriptive regulations, and put a cap on maximum PU output so Mercedes and Ferrari and Audi can run complex hybrids, and Red Bull can run a V8, etc... this forcing everyone into the same arbitrary box in the name of "close racing" will be the death of the sport
Formula gone.
Right? and with the engines turned up like the 919 Evo a few years ago
@@solitaryclusterofneurons598 I feel like there should be a separate championship for the Hypercar class where the teams are allowed to go all-out with their cars to set the fastest possible lap times and the top 3 teams are rewarded with massive payments for it. Won't ever happen due to the increased costs but it's fun to think about.
You could argue professional wrestlers are power units.
Their steroids are the power units. Wrestlers like F-1 cars are the vehicles.
Your comment should be pinned.
The Power Units sounds like a good tag team name
@@MrNegativecreep07 would be better than the Young Bucks at least…
@@AidanMillwardDamn, I’m already subscribed to you. Don’t make me make a new account just to sub again for being a fellow bucks hater
Small note on the Typhoon/Eurofighter: pretty sure it's quadruple-redundant, meaning if the flight computer fails, there are still three remaining to take control.
I would like to add a second note that the reason it needs those computers isn't so much about complexity, but because its aerodynamically unstable, just like that Lotus. They could fly it, but the constant corrections would make it exhausting.
To be even more pedantic, it was inherently designed to be as unaerosynamically stable as possible, to enable it to make major changes of direction at the drop of a hat.
I also don't get the point of trying to make the cars enviro friendly when they are constantly adding races to the schedule. Could have 5 less races and run V12s on rocket fuel and will be the same outcome :D
It's marketing. The manufacturers are going to be taking these engine innovations and dropping them in their high end cars. Being able to sell someone a car with F-1 engine tech, and sell them the narrative that they are saving the environment is good marketing. Most people don't have the ability to think critically. They don't realize that electric batteries are charged from a socket that is connected to a fossil fuel power source. Electric cars are basically the same concept as money laundering. Instead of cash it's fossil fuel that's being washed "clean". This doesn't even begin to explain how nasty things truly are. Lithium mining is so destructive for the environment that it's just as bad, if not worse than coal.
They could make them with the environment in mind without fucking up the cars if they wanted to. Superformula in Japan requires the chassis be made of biodegradable materials, plus there's always e-fuel.
I say limit X amount of each material a team can use in a season, and allow only materials that can be broken down and reused for new parts again, especially with tyres (IIRC F1 teams use about 700 tyres in total on a single weekend, that's a lot of wheels and rubber that could surely be reused).
How about F1 race in Europe only. There's your eco friendly for ya!
Easy. It's all just greenwashing.
The F1 cars themselves probably don't use half the energy that all the refrigerators around a track do, much less the team jets, transport, or by god, the fans and track people.
The cars are probably the greenest part of the weekend.
It's all for show.
Also the race scheduling. Like why are there are two weeks between Australia, Japan and China? Just have them one after the other so teams go from Australia, to Japan to China. Way better than having teams flying back to Europe after each.
There's that question about how Fangio would do in a modern F1 car. If Fangio couldn't drive Fangio, I think Houston has a problem.
Someone will argue that Jim Clark could drive Fangio and win and the whole car would have so little wear and tear that you'd think it was just barely driven.
@@CyanRooper Meanwhile, Senna: I F G A P, C A R
@@RubyRoks Senna moved to Williams for the best car. He was getting older for the sport.
@@gerogyzurkov2259 Not sure what that has to do with my comment. I was just making a joke that he drove like an asshole.
@@gerogyzurkov2259 because McLaren never made their own engines AND had a thing for underpowered oned
It just looks like the rear grip is gone all of the sudden. If I was a director of an F1 team, I would call an American supermodified raceteam and "can we run that in a tunnel, undercover?"
Personally the main enjoyment I get from F1 is the self-sabotaging drama from either the teams or FIA, so I'm really enjoying this trajectory xD
Your remark about how the FIA are trying to overhaul the rules without sacrificing performance brought to mind the 1994 season. The FIA banned all the various driver aids the teams had been developing, but did nothing to slow the cars down, and without all that electronic wizardry keeping them in check, they were suddenly much harder to drive. And we all know how that turned out.
both deadly accidents in the 1994 season were caused by equipment failure, not because the cars were hard to drive.
4:26 "The hell have you done? The car’s evil. It’s f*cking undrivable!” James Hunt - Rush (2013)
- It's a Ferrari!
- It's a shitbox!
I just want the regs to be stable for more than 5 minutes
Okay but every time they are, people have a cow and viewership drops off
@@Ryzard Regs changing as a way to keep people watching only works because people keep waiting to see F1 cars be capable of driving close together and having more passing. F1 keeps making excuses about how they can't make cars that can go nose to tail lap after lap even though Indy cars have done it for decades. And the fact the people in charge of F1 think fans should accept cars that can't pass very much...well that's just going to irritate fans, and does. Also there's how changes are made because of teams whining.
@@laurenmp7486 I mean... Indycar is largely a spec series. Doing that with F1 would remove a lot of the draw for teams and manufacturers, and ruin the idea of the sport for a lot of people. But yeah, I get what you mean.
Ultimately, the issue is that our understanding of cars is too good at this point, and no matter the amount of engineering allowed, the teams will do their absolute best to make passing as impossible as it's possible to do within the regs.
The regs and the engineers are at war perpetually, and the engineers get more room to cheat and find workarounds than the regs can ever be ready for. Which is the point, ofc, but is conflicting with "better racing"
@@Ryzard Even when Indy was a full blown R&D series, they managed to follow closely. The series even then had more strict aero rules than even present day F1.
Simple. Spec the diffuser and rear wing. Then you can clean up the rear airflow allowing following which allows passing. This has been the answer for years.
I don't like the idea of active aero. In F-1 it's not a question of: "Will a team cheat this year?" but more a question of: "Who cheated, and how bad was it?" Active aero will be something that every team will be "bending" the rules around and whatever team does it the best/worst will dominate for the entire year, get talked to in a back room meeting, and then blame it on catering or some other nonsense.
Exactly what I was thinking. “How far will they push this, and who gets popped first?”
Cheating is like half the fun wdym
I kind of like the idea... What about active floors? That could be cool.
Peronally I think the FIA is overdoing it with the cars.
It is that a potential reliabillity aspect can get quite dangerous with the active aero. If things aren't working like they are supposed to and it happens all of the sudden, you will have someone like Max or Lewis crashing while they were relying on that thing to work properly.
I had no issues with the formula introduced in 2014. Yes, there were loads of reliability issues, but that is motorsports. An engine going wrong is something I am used to when I started following F1. That happened on a regular basis. And when an engine "dies", you still have control. You could savely park it somewhere.
This is different with these. If the electronics mess up, you are lucky, if the drag is not reduced in general. If only one side is reduced and the other is stuck on, you will have a massive inbalance.
FIA, just forget active aero, please. Just make them smaller and more raceable. Who cares if they are 4 - 6 seconds slower?
Aircraft have all kinds of "active aero", and are tested with asymmetrical deployment of such things.
@UncleKennysPlace
But they don't race .
smaller, lighter cars, NO HYBRID OR ELECTRIC POWER, v10's on biofuels and the sport would GROW EVEN MORE IN POPULARITY (and save them money), biofuel makes a bigger impact globally but the manufactures will profit less with people keeping older cars/equipment running longer and not buying new
this is a reminder that all the F1 cars in every session (race, practice, testing) burn less fuel than ONE transatlantic flight, its all P.R no substance
You don't even need to ban hybrid/electric, they could just specify a max fuel input per second + a max KW for electric and hybrid powertrains and limit how much CO2 output is allowed. Give some fundamental performance restrictions and ask for a solution rather than basically creating a spec engine. the way the current rules demand. This way you will get a few different approaches, you may have v10, but also v12s and v8 hybrids. If you open up the race to more teams you could get a nice large breadth of ideas.
@@InsufficientGravitas I think the closer we get engines to spec engines the better for the sport honestly but that's my personal opinion, look at Indycar and LMP2, the competitiveness is amazing and the racing is spectacular, just not as restrictive on the aero/setup side as those categories to let the engineers go wild. I honestly like your idea and it's the first i've thought about it, just worried it'll be exposed and 1 path will be right
yes absolutely
1- hybrid make the cars huge
2- v10 perform better than the current engines
@@barthy_ If one path is right then you can either modify how the rules work to make other options more viable or just accept it but still allow other alternatives (much like the way Mazda ran the rotary for a while in endurance).
Never happen. the Teams would walk out. They have zero interest in spending the kind of money needed to develop a V10 pure ICE setup at F1 levels of power.
Car gets set up like the rear wing's fallen off, car drives like the rear wing's fallen off.
How was anybody surprised by this?
Cars have had their rear wings fall off before, sometimes it looked like the sudden loss of suspension load made the rear end bounce off the ground.
F1 should only have rules for safety imo. Other than that it should just be “make a fast car within the cost cap”
Couldn’t agree more. Whichever engine configuration within set guidelines and let the engineers go crazy
Just waiting for the 12 month delay to be announced which would certainly cause issues for Audi/Sauber.
So a slight clarification on the comparison to modern fighter jets like the Eurofighter. In simple terms, modern military jets are aerodynamically unstable and require computer aided stabilisation because they are designed to have their centre of rotation as far back as possible, they handle sort of like a forklift in the way they steer from the rear. While a person could theoretically manage to fly the jet without computer assistance it'd be extremely physically/mentally taxing and leave virtually no room for error, it's sort of like trying to correct a wobble on a bike at 180mph where you can correct the instability with just the right amount of input but if you give it too much/little it'll quickly cascade beyond recovery.
Active adjustable aero in a car likely won't be as critical because you don't have to design an unstable car to begin with, you're trying to enhance its natural balance rather than beat the laws of physics into a pulp. This would be reasonably easy to keep safe by physically limiting the degrees of movement of the control surfaces (ie. if it breaks then it can only move +/- 5 degrees), this would be no more dangerous than wing/body damage following contact or a DRS failure. It'll be interesting to see how it's governed, I'd kind of like to see the reigns taken off to see what the teams could come up with but at the same time I think we might end up in a position where the cars start outgrowing the safety of the tracks
Once the engineers get their hands on the regulations, they'll make them much faster than F2. It's always the narrative 1.5 years out from a regulation change.
This. It's called the s-curve. Like with military planes. The new design has teething trouble so everyone days go back to the old stuff. Improvements are made. New thing gets better. FIA has done very well with rulesets lately. They have MOSTLY done what they were supposed to do. Which includes safety, you apes. The cars have saved a lot of lives.
Remember when they said the 2022 regs would be up to 4 seconds a lap slower? Yeah.
They went from 2.5 L to 1.5 L engines in 1961 and by 1964-1965 they had a 1.5 L BRM V8 running at 11,000 rpm, Ferrari flat-12 and Honda V12 all under the old lap times. These scare stories about slow cars come up every few years and yes, they will find ways to go faster again.
It's one thing to have 1.5 years to make a new chassis. To have all new engines and all new chassis, yeah that's going to be mess.
@@laurenmp7486 bot
I tried your "put finger on arm" exercise
.
and now I am on the intensive care
.
don't try this at home kids !
.
with sadness,
Wolverine
Interesting point to consider, and maybe do a video about, are the future regulation changes across the board. F1 is late and runs into trouble, WRC pressed the panic button and the 2026 regulations (and 2025!) are already late, WEC made last minute changes, which in turn made Toyota change their approach and left Peugeot to compete with a car set for different regulations than what they got. WEC did turn out well, arguably due to LMDh, but this is an awful lot of regulatory hassle in different sports in a short period of time.
I believe the reason why F1 never used active aerodynamics despite road cars using them is due to safety concerns. So many drivers died due to rear wing failures at high speeds (the most well known example is probably Bruce McLaren who died at Goodwood in 1970 when the rear bodywork of the car he was testing flew off at a high speed corner). Nobody will react fast enough to a sudden loss of downforce to save themselves. Even the current cars sometimes have DRS issues (Verstappen at the 2022 Spanish GP, Ricciardo in 2019 had his rear wing fly off during testing causing him to spin off track).
It's the same reason why they won't return to active suspension either (Berger's crash in the 1993 Portuguese GP that could have been like Zanardi's crash was the result of the Ferrari's suspension malfunctioning).
Also while a lot of people are willing to have slower cars in exchange for better racing, the fact remains that people love to roast F1 cars when they aren't the fastest in the world (mainly due to how snobbish F1 fans tend to be towards other motorsports fans). Even to this day people talk about how fast the 2004 cars were and there's always one person who goes "put the F2004 on slicks and it'll destroy modern F1 cars" and some people still love to point out how the 2014-2016 cars were slower than the GP2 cars of the time.
I just hope the FIA gives the teams more time by pushing the new regulations back a few years so that we don't get a situation like 1994 where the cars are undrivable because the teams didn't have enough time to iron things out.
2014 cars were slow, by 2016 they were starting to gain back the downforce the regulations took away and set a few records at several tracks, the 2017 regs with larger cars weren't necessarily, they could have easily allowed the new wings and tires on 2016 cars.
tbh with todays engineering advancements, we can have our cake and eat it too, meaning we could make cars on par to 2004 without an ungodly amount of downforce. Tyre compounds have come a long way since then.
Cars are as complex now as they were back then. The issue with the active systems in the past is that they were an immature technology, and immature tech is generally less reliable. In the present day, active tech is pretty mature, material science has advanced as well, there's no reason other than cost to use it.
Don't forget Ericsson horror crash when it comes to DRS failures
The new Porsche Taycan GT has active suspension ON AN EXTREMELY HEAVY AND FAST ROAD CAR. I don't think that it's too dangerous to use anymore. Active aero I think should be workable if it is operating at both the front and back. The idea of only doing active aero at the back was incredibly stupid as even a first year physics student could point out why that wouldn't work.
If Vettel can run his FW14B on 100% renewable corn oil or whatever the fu**, then so can all of the F1 teams. Bring back NA V10’s!
Hell yeah! They got synthetic fuels, use em and bring back V10's!
@@polycube868 I like the idea of synthetic fuels for racing, the only problem is that it is not a good solution for road cars and the public might take the fact that because it is good for renewable racing it is the best solution for all cars when it's not. It takes a lot, and I mean a lot of energy to make, so at best it will be 2/3 times more expensive than traditional fuels.
@@callumcurtis15 gas prices are bad enough as is
@@callumcurtis15 I dunno, no one is really expecting to put jet fuel in their car. It should be pretty clear that this is highly exotic stuff for racing only.
People are always mixing up bio-fuel (corn ethanol) and synthetic-fuel! Vettel's run was on carbon neutral synthetic fuel -- i.e., hydrogen made from water using renewable electricity, then combined with captured carbon dioxide to make heavier hydrocarbon fuels using renewable electricity. Hydrogen combustion engines eliminate the second step, but have their own challenges.
While a lot of engine DNFs might make them look silly, I would like the unpredictability of it.
I remember a time when it was the norm.
I’m torn, the unpredictability of it is definitely more entertaining, but it’s also heartbreaking to watch a great driver put in a great drive and lose the race or even the championship because of engine failures
hey man, keepup the good work. been my go to guy for motorsport history and news since you started storytime :)
I never thought of the whole PU vs Engine and the whole sports entertainment vs Professional wrestling thing but it makes sense this isn’t FE ITS AN ENGINE!
On that note at the end of WM Michael Cole said “ Professional Wrestling is back !” lol so maybe F1 will call them engines again
@@briankenney8609 it's was an engine when it was just an engine, now it's an engine and a whole bunch of other stuff
If it's an engine what do you call the...engine part of the PU?
This is one of the things I generally try not to give myself a headache trying to wrap my pretty little head around and just wait for your explanation and thoughts on. And as always you deliver. Still not sure if I have a coherent thought around it, but now I actually understand the issue at hand!
To make it a product again, they need 1. Competitive series where any number of teams can win. 2. Overtaking which you get through minimising the loss of grip behind a car whilst maximising the slipstream effect. 3. Cars that are exciting to drive and watch with more power, less grip. There should be zero electronic aids so what the driver puts in, the car does. And zero DRS or any other gimmick that isn’t racing. It ain’t rocket science
yeah, DRS is just to compensate time lost by dirty air, but anyways, tyres suffer a lot of degradation, and anything can't solve that problem apart of reducing aero. if they reduce downforce they don't need DRS or push to pass
Sounds like F1 in 2016. Drivers complained there was too little grip.
Really sounds like V8 supercars out of Australia with how it's a borderline spec race, though with enough variety to keep it interesting! Honestly, if F1 could get to that point, except still be the fastest motorsport, I'd be impressed
"Competitive series where any number of teams can win" The only reason many teams can't win is because they did a crap job... The opportunity is very much already there. BOP is the last thing F1 needs.
@@Awkward_Fox Yet despite the cars being all identical the 888 team takes a 1-2 in most races. So even in spec series (F2 likewise) some teams are more equal than others. Rule makers bizarrely let 888 design the racecar that everyone has to use (no conflict of interest there!) instead of a third party like Harrop Engineering. Early Group 3A and Project Blueprint when there were more freedoms in the engineering (albeit less than Super Touring, which was even more interesting in terms of engineering) were much better eras of V8 Supercar racing IMO.
Another quality video and we’re getting closer to the Roberto Moreno story time!
Great video, certaily concerning that this issiue exits hopefully it will be sorted
FIA control over car designs is starting to kill my joy of watching F1.
There was a time where V6s, V8s and V12s, turbo and NA, were all on the same grid. Where Williams making a car with 6 wheels was legal, if not successful. Bring back that kind of competition.
It's nothing new! The FIA mandated the dumb flat floors in 1983, after teams were quite blatantly cheating the 60mm ride height rule (enforced by laser) the FIA created in 1982. Heck some people (bizarrely) even like the narrow 1.8m cars the FIAcreated in 1998, instead of the nice wide 2.15m cars from 1972-1992...
Bizzarely like the 1.8 m ones?
All the early 2000s cars are 1.8m, including the F2004. Narrow cars with a screaming V10 was arguably one of the best eras to be a F1 fan.
@@Majima_Nowhere It was the Tyrrell P34
@@7MGTE Williams FW08B and FW08D. It had four wheels in the back, the Tyrrell had them in the front. It was tested but never raced, the FW08 ended up with 4 wheels.
OK, this is the best thing you've done in a while, please continue!
If you are up for a challenging topic, how about delving into driver setup skills? The Good, The Bad, The Lucky? The Legends and the Useless? For example, driver feedback is only part of it - there also is the feel that can take the setup where the modeling doesn't or cannot. Truth or fiction?
With regards to the moveable wings, I am assuming it is a similar concept to something like the McLaren P1 wing system where on the straights, the wing activates once you hit a certain speed, adjusts itself to minimize drag, and closes during deceleration and cornering.
It’s kinda weird that the new engine regulations for 2026 have been known since 2022 I think? And the FIA r just now trying to figure out the ENTIRE rules and regulations for the 2026 cars. Like the idea of the engine regulations has been well known, 50/50 power between the ICE and Hybrid, with the car being kinda similar to the 2022-current regs, but the ins and outs of the regulations r still being decided, and in simulations the car is completely unstable. It’s like a triple A game developer how they’ll announce and make a game within a year or two or plus that depending on the developer, they release the game and it’s the most broken thing to ever come out and is basically with some still in beta form or worse pre alpha. I feel like come the 2026 season there’s gonna be a ton of reliability issues among teams and probably some other issues.
Well, they _really_ wanted that engine change. Everything else was basically an afterthought.
The teams will ALWAYS find a way to make heaps of outwash. It's the meta now, build the car with basically a "no passing" force field.
And the FIA could put a stop to that. And tell F1 teams that if Indy cars in the 90s could drive nose to tail, F1 teams look pathetic trying to keep cars from being able to pass.
That's because the FIA hasn't done anything to address the bending of the rules since '22. They definitely could have.
They’re trying to be road-relevant, yet the current or new engines are not permitted to have VVT or VCT, which a great many road car engines now have.
That's a good point yeah
Another great video Aidan
WEC is the true pinnacle of Motorsport.
I think F1 needs to open up the regs somewhat like WEC, I'm not keen on BoP but it might be a necessary evil. The only issue is that fanboys will have major saltiness every time the back markers get an advantage.
And WEC doesn't tell people "no you can't race here cause we made up some garbage excuses". Also it doesn't take forking over a huge stack of cash.
@@LuminalSpoon Opening up and adopting EoT (and its classes) like LMP1H would help and that's kinda different of BoP.
Also they could limit aero by lift to drag ratio. I.e first season of rule cycle is free, 2nd season onwards you have a lift to drag ratio limited by the numbers from the car that won the championship from first season + what F1 expect from performance improvements so cars can keep getting faster year after year.
Doing these changes would put the grid together without people arguing over BoP.
WEC is BOP garbage. Formula Two engines, 20 year old LMP2 engines with turbos on them... It's some pinnacle! (Not.) The Ferrari and Toyota are well-designed cars (even with the road car engine in the Ferrari), but to be pegged back to the others with as much as +69kg over the basic Hypercar class weight, I do NOT agree with that. BOP horribly spoils being able to enjoy WEC as an engineering, or indeed sporting, competition.
@@TassieLorenzo BOP still allows for better racing than F1 though, which is MAXWINSLOL every single race, BOP isn't even that much of a factor as the engineering to counterract it (which is a big part in Hypercar).
Production on the Roberto Moreno video should be in full swing by now.
My fave era of F1 was the 2000s, even when the aero became complex from 06 onwards. Cars looked great, could race still. Now with this bs it’s crazy
I've watched from 1998 to 2007 and the racing was very good from '98 until 2003. There was a clear point around 2003-2004 where the aero wake ruined the racing and it never really recovered from what I've seen. The increased number of races is also a bummer, especially with the cost cap making it basically just a rerun of the same race a number of times with little development changes. I didn't grow up with F1 so this isn't nostalgia, it was just good racing back then.
anything pre hyrbid era lol
I remember doing high front wing, no rear wing, balance tests using Indy 500 in about 1990. You could balance about 2 of 10 wing steps with the sway bars, after that you were spinning like a top.
And cars at Indy don't run much downforce even on max wing.
6:17
You are truly a REAL ONE for that reference Aiden.
Hi there Aidan, nice polo shirt ya rockin there!! May I ask what size you went for, if you don’t mind me asking please ? I only ask because I don’t believe castore do what I would consider correct sizes ! Personally with over 30 years of F1 fandom under my belt, I find the only company to produce correct sizes regarding f1 merch are puma, with kappa in a close second, everyone else I seem to have to add anywhere between 1&4 X’s in front of the normal xl that I am !!
I find weird cars not having failures given back in the day they were so common. Looks like a thing of the past like a crash with fuel igniting or racing in the wet
When was racing in the wet actually common? I've watched all of the races from '98 to 2007 and don't recall seeing an actual extreme wet tyre race that wasn't red flagged. In the early oughts they typically gave it a go but then red flagged after visibility became impossible.
@@wiegraf9009 2008 at Silverstone they gave it a shot and driver behaved well, apart from Massa 😂😂
@@wiegraf9009 Canada, don't recall the year but the race took some 5 hours due to red flag because of the rain. To my knowledge it's still the longest F1 GP ever held.
Active aero is the next step forward
Followed by active suspension and then....
Active drivers and oh shit we made battle bots
You've just described CyberFormula
What's the point of having Turbocharged engines now that MGU-H is gone? Go back to Naturally Aspirated v8/v10 with a MGU-K Hybrid.
The 50/50 power split is also a marketing pipe dream - unreal w/o going too heavy. 65/35 max.
Go back to V10s. The engines blowing up spices things up and avoids extremely predictable strategy races every weekend. With exotic materials having been banned since the 90s I don't think there's any way you could make a high revving F1 engine that would be as bullet proof as these turbo hybrid V6s.
@@wiegraf9009 as if reducing rpms is not an option? Limit at 15-16k instead of 20k and suddenly they are far more reliable. Current cars can rev to 14k but you don't see it because of the power band.
Keep the hybrid part, it will also help a lot with reliability and longevity of engines.
They should only use the active aero to replace fixed-configuration DRS: the closer you're to the car in front, the smaller the DRS is open.
This would allow continued use of DRS to balance out dirty air while limiting the super easy passes we've seen at some tracks since 2011.
If you want an example of how awesome the fights could be, think Hamilton Vs. Schumacher at Monza 2011.
Great video Aidan. My humble opinion is that They should drop the hybrid malarkey. F1 should be about engine, suspension and aero.
On the subject of the Eurofighter analogy, I don't think it''s about checking a great many instruments on the panels. Many modern fighters are inherently unstable, which means that only a computer can fly them at all, making constant, counter-intuitive corrections with the many control surfaces at all times. They very well might be able to drive the Fangio concept in a similar way, though probably not with great lap times if the thing is a real dog.
That is true since the ground is accelerating the car upwards :)
A sudden computer glitch could still be deadly going flat out on a straight but it is not as dangerous as flying an inherently unstable plane like the Eurofighter.
The FIA... should be renamed to Fucked It Again.
Would be great to see a video about how the F1 regs have evolved over time. Were there always so many back in the 60s and 70s? Are there too many? Would it be better with less? Is it really the pinnacle of motorsport with so many?
Regulation changes have almost always been reactionary, without limitations designers would produce deathtraps, and drivers would still drive them.
Most of the rules (which indeed get longer with every revision) are to slow the cars down. Otherwise with say 1975 rules we would have fan cars with 1.5L turbo engines with unlimited boost droning around with CVT transmissions, traction control and active suspension and with little to no mandatory provisions for crash safety (albeit outboard fuel tanks had already been banned by 1975, hence the move to central fuel tanks and a more upright driver position)! 🙂
@@TassieLorenzoI didn’t suggest no regs but things like not being able to change set ups after qualifying, having to use a slower tyre, penalties for using to many engines etc. These things don’t affect safety. The cost capping and stopping them testing just means whoever gets it right at the start of a new set of regs is going to win because nobody is able to spend/test what they need to to catch up. There were eras when some teams had V10s others had V12s. This season nearly every car is a copy of last seasons RB - that is not the sort of innovation I want to see at the pinnacle of motorsport
@@astonwards7236understood but there is a vast difference from safety regs to banning teams from testing or making them use a slow tyre or not letting them change set ups between qualifying and the race
Love that you picked Roman’s lotus for the demo 😂
Yes you shunted at Copse and lost the rear wing, but since the rear wing did nothing it doesn’t matter. Genius Aidan!
Do you acknowledge your Tribal Chief, Aidan?
(Great video, btw)
remember when it was discussed that they might see the removal of DRS on this current car? Now it's activated sooner than the previous car.
At this rate, we ought to just allow DRS on demand like it used to be.
DRS was a mistake
Wrestling is staged, not fake... lol. I'm not a wrestling, but they do beat each other up pretty good, they do deaden the hit when they can.
I wonder how much of the active aero push is to reduce the reliance on the engine power given weight is likely to increase with larger batteries. They’re kind of in a bit of a box.
It's funny. Previously, the FIA did everything they could to make the cars slower. Most recently, the 1998 rule set. Then, in 2017 they made them faster again. I enjoyed 1998 just as much as the 1997 season, even though they were much slower. I actually think the MP4/13 looks better than the MP4/12.
Wrestling’s fake? Wow! Thanks for ruining my childhood 😂😂😂😂😂😂
A lot of people talk about overtaking and dirty air. Thing is even if you take the dirty air away, you still have everyone running on rails meaning the time gained in corners is minimal. The only way to overtake is by DRS or lunging on the brakes at a hairpin which usually requires DRS to get close enough
What??? These cars have no TC, no ABS, and are quite hard to drive thanks to ground effect. If dirty air weren't an issue then they would overtake and they definitely aren't "on rails."
Reminds me of all the former Indycar and F1 drivers tried to run ovals in NASCAR when they were pushing 1000 hp. Abilities don’t reflect car capabilities. Like Parker Kligerman mentioned earlier this week, these F1 engineers will figure this out. This will lead to some innovative ideas.
Karma for not making the cars small enough still
The issue with modern F1 is that technical regs are destroying competition. The FIA sees this issue and tries to fix it with.... More regs. I say let teams do whatever the hell they want, within reason. If RB wants bendy wings, let them do it. If Ferrarri wants to burn 50/50 oil and fuel, let them do it. If Merc wants their DAS and party mode, let them have it. Right now, if a team can't "get it right" within current regs, they have no other options. It's either develop the best solution first or be fighting for 16th place.
Ease engine regs to just a displacement limit, which could change based on if the engine uses forced induction and/or or a hybrid system. Right now I can't tell you which team uses which engine because it doesn't matter. The biggest difference between cars is the side pods and what their brake ducts look like. Might as well be a spec series at this point.
My opinion is: The FIA's mouth wrote a cheque its hands can't cash.
Hi editing Aidan, you should get involved more!
How high is the probability, that the new regulation gets postponed for another year? Seem almost unavoidable to me
Ford RBPT and Audi won't like that (indeed they would have huge problems with no 2022-2025 spec power unit to fall back on), so I don't think that's possible.
The euro fighter and f16 the flight surfaces are designed for maximum manoeuvrability and is unstable, so the plane will not stay in stable level flight and a pilot can not react quick enough for all the corrections required. if f1 goes this way its basically going back to the 93 regulations with all the driver aids and that might be a solution allow active suspension to keep the ground effect, but i think the biggest thing is this is the first real major change since burnie was not involved and it shows.
i say make.the cars smaller like they were 20 years ago, reduce cluttery and expensive electronics like 20 years ago and put just some fast engines in them,like 20 years ago , also reduce waste , reduce engineering time increase sustainability, just use the cars from 20 years ago
Safety improves over time. Undoing 20 years and +80kg worth of safety stuff since 2004 is generally not going to be palatable, hence why historic race cars tend to race in dedicated historic racing... (I wasn't in favour of the halo, +20kg, at first, but the likelihood of it being taken away now it's common place is slim to none!)
So you're telling me driving the new cars will be like having Lewis behind, punting you off in a fast right hander? 🤪
Another banger Aidan. Cheers.
"Understeer" you off the circuit in a fast right hander.
That's gonna leave a mark in the morning!
I just want them to make the cars smaller again, but it seems that they are so focused on making the cars faster, they'll probably make them even longer and wider for "stability."
I do like the idea of having engine jeopardy again, as heartbreaking as it can be there's been some iconic moments because of it
Autonomous active aero which makes the car undriveable? It sounds like a car from 1998 anime.
(Yeah, I'm looking at you, Ogre AN-21)
ONE HUNDRED K. ONE HUNDRED K. Well deserved, mate! 🎉🎉
The active aero is a dangerous game. Imagine one of the moving panels detached at 300MPH !! .😮😮
Absolutely agree, what is the point in making them faster, does it make the racing any better, hell no, if there is no compromise then where is the difference going to be? If the cars are all trimmed out down the straights then DRS is going to have less effect surely?
I think the Russell/Alonso accident (or whatever) shows how tapped out the car/driver combination is, to me at least it seems they are at the edge of what a driver can react to.
With all the money rolling in from DTS, I think F1 is forgetting about the actual racing quality vs the drama, there will come a point where someone notices they have no clothes...
It’s a conspiracy… they’re afraid Andretti-Cadillac will reapply. They figure if they don’t know what they’re building for it’ll keep them away. 😂
Just to note: I’m half serious. 😂
NA v8-v12 with varying displacement and bio-fuel. It's literally what every fan wants (minus the biofuel part, but whatever). They would increase revenue way more this way than by attracting any new constructor. It's mindblowing to me they don't just do this.
Honestly, if you're going to get rid of the MGU-H there's really no point in having turbocharged engines anymore. The fuel flow limit already gimps RPM and power as is, but if you get rid of the turbo you'll have the same power and fuel usage, but you can run the engines to a higher RPM for a more exciting sound. Not to mention they'd be much more responsive and thus better to drive and it would save a fair chunk on weight unless you force the teams to make their exhaust manifolds out of tungsten or something ridiculous. They're planning on getting rid of a lot of the ICE power for '26 anyway to reduce overall fuel usage per race to satisfy the EU so really, what's the harm in getting rid of the turbo? Even better if you mandate they run an x-pipe on the exhaust and have twin exits below the rear wing; that would sound mental.
The other thing that I don't get is why they don't allow more experimental things like rotary valve heads or at least some copycat BMW Valvetronic system to get rid of the throttle bodies completely? The road relevance argument is mute no matter what engine you make them build as it's always going to be a super oversquare design with a VERY narrow valve included angle, which genuinely no street car is ever going to run because it makes the thing undrivable if you aren't giving it full tilt at high RPM. Oversquare designs are basically dead now due to emissions regulations anyway. Undersquare designs have less surface area for heat transfer and thus less heat losses but you can't rev them high at all, which doesn't matter since you can't rev high with direct injection anyway unless you have some sort of light-speed injectors with a quantum computer for the ECU. At least if they'd let them experiment with novel designs we might get something that would be useful for street cars until they eventually regulate combusion engines off showrooms. A lot of this tech has existed for decades now and it's only been barred from motorsports due to these regulations mandating the most basic "this is how wikipedia says a combustion engine is built" methods to be used instead of already proven reliable tech that would improve overall engine efficiency and responsiveness.
There's a cost cap already in place to reduce costs for development wars, so who cares if they're allowed to risk their budget on experimenting with cool stuff we'd all love to see out on track?
"...while preserving lap times." < bite point.
I hope they are fast even if they are undrivable, that will make things exciting.
Came for this essay, stayed for downforce settings tips at 5:20
This was a good thing. Thank you Aidan "Thing" Millward
Oh yeah, having a lower rear wing and higher front wing makes the car easier to flip, especially if there is a rear-biased weight balance.
It makes sense in a way, why disrupt the natural airflow over the car prematurely. I view these f1 cars as basically airplanes on wheels don’t see the need for active areo.
This might be a good thing. If they leave it late enough the only option will be to stick some non-hybrid V10s in there and get on with it.
1:02 bang on brother
To me its ridiculous how nobody has raised an eyebrow on the Power Units being 50% electric, at this rate they are going to make the sport almost fully electric, just for the sake of sustainability.
old_guy_yells_at_coud.png
Yes. Welcome to the 21st century!
They have synthetic fuels, I'm sure Ferrari, Judd, Gibson and Cosworth could build a good old V10 for them.
@@KevinJDildonik 21 century, a time in which Fia believes making cars Hybrid has a true positive impact on the enviroment whereas The Tour de France is the most polluting competition in the world while riding bikes, yeah lol
Very very dubious sustainability. If they wanted to improve sustainability they could ban taking private jets and helicopters to the GPs. That would do far more.
Taking a page out of Nascar's playbook I see 😂
I'm also guessing there will be a weight reduction in the "power unit" when they change, which means less mechanical weight behind the driver as well.
That seems impossible given that they will need a bigger battery for 50/50 power and they are removing the MGU-H, which is TINY and provides a huge efficiency gain. Still going to be a V6, still going to be turbo, so the weight losses will not come from the PU. They are trying to run smaller tyres and have narrower cars to drop weight.
Nice 180° turn after spinning out.the b2 bomber could not fly with out computers its shape makes it impossible so thats basically the same as what they want to do
F1 is trying to engineer themselves out of a problem they created. As the cars have gotten bigger and the focus on aero is increased, the racing has gotten worse. Why? 2 reasons.
1: The tracks can not grow with the cars. The large the car, the fewer usable lines there are, meaning more line-a-stern racing where cars can be affected by aero-wash.
2: The regulations are so tight that teams can not innovate to get around aero wash. Now that there is a cost cap, the regulations should be loosened. As long as it is a hybrid, give the teams a displacement limit, a standard fuel, a standard battery, and let them innovate. We could see V6s, v8s, inline 5s, who knows. LMH/LMDh car regs are a good example. Engine power and energy deployment can overcome aero issues.
The moral of the story is that f1 needs to take a page from the past and relinquish a bit of control.
I especially agree on the second part, if you have the regulations as tight as they are adding a budget cap kills most form of innovation/thinking outside the box you go in a direction that didn’t work for you you’re years behind and way more fearful of taking risks so you just end up building your own interpretation on known concepts - see the many RB clones lol
If you want a budget cap that’s fine but you will need to open up the regulations as well lack of spending and restrictions will only respond in poorer ideas in an non spec series
Can Am used to be innovative with how little rules there were yet people ended up calling it "The Bruce and Denny Show" due to how often Bruce McLaren and Denny Hulme kept winning for 5 seasons straight. But if regulations were put in place to improve the on track action people complain and call it "fake racing".
There's no winning with motorsports fans.
@@CyanRooperThere's always loopholes even with less rulings.
@CyanRooper, very true. But Can-Am had zero money restrictions and no rules. It became a experimental car racing league for people with deep pockets. Fun to watch for a bit, but it eventually because a money game. F1 just needs to keep the cost cap and add guidelines instead of regs. Instead of saying a turbo-hybrid v6, say a 2.5 L engine with a max of 800hp. They can turbo, supercharge, natually aspirate, their call. Weight becomes a variable, acceleration, fuel economy, all that becomes something teams can engineer. Variability equals cars with different strengths and better racing. Instead of teams fighting to hit the one perfect formula, they can find their own perfect formula that works for their PU/chassis set up.
@@stayoffthemarbles6790 Cam AM died out once they lost support from the major manufacturers. F1 was one point like that also nearly finished, but was able to survive cause of major manufacturers willing to stay and support F1.
not a fan of the 50/50 engine idea bc electric power sucks the ICE should be the main power and the hybrid shit should be a bonus
Overreliance on aero - the enemy of good racing, and how to burn money. Again - Ban all aero but for a simple single-piece front and rear wing of mandated maximum horizontal area, mounted outside the axel lines. Dump the engine formula for an FIA provided fuel formula based initially on current regs and let the teams go ham. Oh, and mandate a maximum track and wheelbase roughly half that of the current cars... minimum weight for driver + seat only, so as not to penalise larger drivers. Standard Tyres. Otherwise anything goes, safety allowing.
Good job with “the thing”
I hope they are undriveable would be quite exciting
The FIA's reputation could do with a good ruining. No one expects them to do anything but make a colossal hash of the entire rulebook.
Mazepin is back on the grid with those undriveable car physics...
...he might be the only one that can drive 'em.
From the same people that thought not give mass dampeners or active suspension to a ground effect car would end well