yeah that's ridiculous, with addition of 30kg PU minimum weight, the chassis needs to be ~60kg lighter than the current one if they want to achieve 768kg minimum weight. Even with 20cm shorter and 10cm narrower footprint that's beyond optimistic
And a massive fuel tank because we are afraid of refueling despite every other race series being able to allow it safely. Seriously? An F1 constructor can make the fastest race car in the world but can't figure out refueling? Get out of my face!
3:31 No, just to be clear it's not the engine that's getting heavier, infact it's lighter than ever It's the battery and hybrid components that are getting heavier
@@bltzcstrnx Higher discharge rate battery chemistries have a gravimetric density disadvantage when compared to lower discharge rate chemistries. Thus the same capcity weighs more since it needs to output more power and the chemistry needs to change for that to occur.
@@luke45879 Ford joined for marketing. I doubt they care tbh. They'd rather just slap an emblem on the RBPT than have to hire 200 engineers to make batteries and hybrid systems
Honestly by time we get to 2026 no one will even talk about X or Z mode, it'll just be how the cars run, and manual override will be called MOM mode or something
You're probably right! I think the front wing is the biggest pitfall! A small touch and you lose the active aero and your car becomes deathly dangerous! Front wing damage is a regular occurrence and wether you keep racing with the loss or stop to change it you can salvage your race , but with active aero wings I'm not sure how easy are they to change with actuaters, hydrolics and electronics in the front wing.
@@MMAli-rq8kdYou are right, and all this within an ever shrinking Budget. Imagine the cost of a damaged front wing! They will have to package and independent hydraulic or electronic system for controlling the front wing while ensuring that it is not fragile and can also be easily replaced during a pitstop.
@@DAGATHire The joke could only work on people who are ignorant of the technical rules. Obviously, phillgizmo did his homework, and the only thing he find comedic about it, is the OP's ignorance of the rule.
I don't want to watch who can save the most energy tyres etc.. I want to see drivers and teams pushing to the limit of technology and what is physically possible at all times because that's what makes F1 attractive. It is infuriating to see cars 5 - 6 seconds slower on Sunday over Saturday. It's frustrating to see cars almost 150kg heavier than they should be and driving like tanks. 650kg (excluding driver) should be the limit with all the modern safety required in my opinion.
This is an insane comment because we can literally tell you’re making it up as you go. If you only want to watch a series that “pushes the limit of technology at all times” you’ve been in the wrong place for the last 25 years. As mentioned above too - cars have been multiple seconds slower in the race vs quali for decades even with refueling. You been watching? You can’t even tell the difference between a 1:17 and 1:19 watching the car run (as evidenced by commentators like Martin on a weekly basis) so who cares? Outside of the extreme scenarios like Monaco this year you’re just searching for a problem that doesn’t exist
They are literally pushing the limits of technology. That's exactly what these changes do with going as fast or faster while using less energy to do it over a race distance.
I don't really give a toss about how fast the cars are, I just want good racing. If you want to see people "pushing to the limit of technology and what is physically possible" maybe just like... sign up to a science magazine or something?
@@fairsaa7975 He means the technology in motor racing, don't play dumb 😆 I kinda agree but I mostly blame the cost cap... Even with strict restrictions if you keep researching and spending money you will always find a loophole or a workaround to make your car faster. I get that this makes the teams be closer but I think it's making it a bit static. I mean it took 1,5 year for a team to catch up to redbull which carried a penalty on windtunnel time on top of the cut off because of their first place.
They should’ve opened certain areas of the combustion engine for development. Since 2014 they’ve pretty much mastered combustion control but engines are still limited with turbo geometry, the valve train etc Areas that could easily see the thermal efficiency of the engines improve even further
Theory about the naming of the X and Z mode, based on experience from the automotive sector. Cars are designed in a coordinate system where the X-axis is longitudinal, Y is transversal an Z is vertical. Drag on a car is a force working in the X-direction while downforce works in the Z-direction, so it’s all fairly logical for an Engineer.
Very true, for me as an engineer from the car industry it is totally logical and it is probably how the engineers were talking about the modes when developing them. But they should've taken a step away from their engineers mindset and make it more logical for others as well when they published their idea. A downforce mode and a drag reduction mode would have satisfied both.
@@haribo836 ...true enough, but we are acting like X and Z modes are difficult to understand. X and Z is pretty cool I think. I'm no engineer, but most everyone should be able to understand the X,Y and Z axis if they understand concepts like drag reduction and downforce?.... 10/10 name for me as a casual fan. Overall though, it seems like F1 is doing way to much with the formula these days. I'd like to see skilled/entertaining/competitive racing not sacrificed for engineering. Seems like F1 has just been making changes to make changes or for reasons that are not with great racing at the forefront? Cheers.
They want them to drive electric rockets on wheels. It’s not about the cars or engines anymore, some tracks are struggling to get a race with these cars and they aren’t helping it.
Personally, I like (Granted, I might be vastly underestimating just how important it is) that the minimum weight is not guaranteed, but rather a goal to strive for for the teams.
That way though is a sure fire way to have parts failure induced crashes like the early days that killed drivers. I think it’s better to make it easy to hit the limit. And certainly safer. And fairer. Big budget teams will just setup other businesses to study material science and that create super light components for some other sport (bicycles, cars, motorcycles) like they do now with boats, learning aero tricks that don’t abuse the cost cap. RB, Aston, Ferrari, McLaren and Mercedes all do this currently with sailing boats and other auto racing series like WEC and Indy. The divide will simply grow. I think it’s better to make targets affordable and let them spend money and talent on the aero and PU.
@@f.kieranfinney457 The concern about part failures is understandable but what really got drivers killed in the old days were the paper mâché construction of the chassis themselves. John Watson walking away from a hideous wreck in the 80's because of his carbon-tubbed McLaren MP4/1 proves this. Suspension pieces could snap now, but the cars themselves are so strong that the meatbags inside are usually fine. With that in mind, I'm with OP. The FIA puts these cars through crash-testing for a reason, so as long as they're passing those tests, I haven't a problem with hard-to-hit weight targets. For all the talk of leveling the playing field, F1 still has backmarkers. Even BoP classes have backmarkers. The divide will always exist, and if less-strictly defined limits mean that divide grows, I wouldn't care.
it could be that if the engines are even remotely equal in power, whoever hits the minimum weight could dominate. but personally I think we should just go with these slightly radical rules and then start fixing them at the start of 26 once we see how the cars run
That's what it always has been. Now the weight limit is also the goal to reach and teams were overweight in 2022. The goal is to be underweight so you can 'play' with the ballast placement and weight distribution.
I'm so glad to have witness the glory V10 era compared to this current nonsense of tire/power/battery/grandma management instead of pure all out racing.
Some of us experienced the inline 4, straight 6, straight 8, V-8, Flat 8, V-6, V-12, flat 12, H-16, V-16, P& W turbo-shaft and V-10 eras. They were all more interesting than the current "Prius Formula" cars. Of course they lacked any modern safety requirements. Mix those safety features in and turn the designers loose. Why couldn't Audi run inline 5's? Or, Ford run V-8's? Or, Ferrari V-12's? For that matter, how about a Honda 24 cylinder X engine (four banks of 6 cylinders)? Heavy as heck but crazy amounts of power at a gazillion rpm. Soon, we'll have electric scooters, with wings. Yippee. [please note the sarcasm]
@@michaeldelaney7271 I loves those eras, but this year has produced some of the most compelling racing in a long time - that or Verstappen losing terrain has just made it seem that way.
@@issahgyandi3365 I agree. As you said, we probably have Red Bull's lack of pace to thank for the apparent competitiveness. And, the regulations require almost identical cars and engines. Isn't it odd that since Adrian Newey said he was leaving, that Red Bulls have gotten less and less competitive? The team has said he "really wasn't all that important anymore." Really? These modern "Prius Formula" cars will never stir the blood like a howling Ferrari 12 (vee or flat), a Honda V10, a screaming Matra V-12 or even a good old Ford-Cosworth DFV V-8.
Frankly, I would like the cars to get a little bit smaller than that, but allow less restrictions on performance. That keeps the racing, since smaller cars allow for easier overtakes, and keeps the incentive for innovations.
"Less restrictions on performance" sounds great for innovation and creativity, which is almost outlawed now. But smaller cars are faster cars (in a straight line) and faster cars have higher energy crashes so we have to watch out for "unintended consequences."
It's not really possible with all that hybrid and battery at the rear. They are very very cautious with the crash safety as well, we are stuck with this for many years.
Williams' complaints about the weight limit show their fear. Remember when Sauber was faster in 2022 because they met the minimum weight? That's the beauty of the weight limit. Vowles is worried because Williams is behind on reducing the car's weight and will likely struggle with the 2026 rules as well.
Sauber even got shafted that year as they arbitrarily increased the minimum weight to 798kg even though they could reach the 795kg Probably cost them some points
In the end it was actually bad for Sauber that they met the minumum weight. As at the start of 2022 everyone thought that they had good car but it was just cause other cars where overweight. When other team started to get the weight down Sauber was left in the back and they are still there.
Sauber can only went below minimum weight cuz they made the wheelbase shorter, but as soon as others were able save weight even with longer wheelbase, Sauber can't improve as much in terms of aerodynamic performance since their chassis was limiting the performance
Issue is they’ve given us absolutely no freedom in the draft rule set. Right now there is literally no freedom. Lots of geometry is prescribed by the fia. So there is no changing allowed by the teams.
@@pbutok The 2026 rules are just another step on the road to a One Design Formula, like NASCAR and Indycar. The next set of regulations after that, will either require all teams to manufacture the same FIA design in their own shops or, simply eliminate the middleman and, require everyone to use an FIA supplied chassis manufactured by Dallara. Perhaps they will allow each team to apply any logo they wish to the cam covers of an FIA provided engine.
In 2022 they lost 15 % this season they gained 10% compared to 2022 considering it isn’t a complete overhaul but more a tweak I think we will look at maybe a rough 8 tenths off the 2022 times
@@Faiz_Azad-Khan again it’s not really about the outright speed. The issue with the current regs is freedom. They are so prescriptive there is very little room for any difference in design between different teams. That’s very anti f1 in my eyes.
@@pbutok yeah but when there is freedom you’ll get stuff like DAS, blown diffusers, f ducts others will try and copy but fail or even completely ruin their season because back then we did not have the knowledge or data to come up with really crazy stuff but now we do and for safety and the integrity of the sport this is the solution
Considering a lot of us understood easily Hypersoft,Ultrasoft,supersoft,soft, medium, hard, very hard tyres....the whole casual thing is nonsense. The casual fans that watch f1 now dont watch the racing they watch for their favourite drivers to thirst over.
Have they considered cute, very cute, and super cute settings for Ricciardo's smile? That's the only reason I watch. And because of the ROCKSTAR LIFESTYLES of the drivers.
It's not a joke, it's a step on the path to a sustainable racing machine that future generations can continue to enjoy as fossil fuels become obsolete. Also, the weight of the battery doesn't do anything to down force... Not sure what that added to your flippant response. Just complaining because the drivers might need to drive better? Idk.
Tbh I don't believe the teams, we have a constructors championship for a reason let them compete with difficult rules. Cars never end up being as slow as they say and after 2 years the development makes them 2 or 3 seconds faster anyway.
FIA thought 22 regs would create close racing. They were wrong. They have admitted 26 cars will be slower. Who wants that? And it’s where they are slower that concerns me. We want high cornering speeds , high downforce and don’t really care about straight line. Without downforce they won’t be able to pass at corner entry because these cars will be unstable in transition, swapping Z to X mode. Everyone will have DRS on the straight so no overtaking there either. Does not add up to great racing. Sounds like DRS trains on steroids. Nope. Nope. Nope.
Sounds much like the same stuff the media and teams say every time there’s a big regulation change. Most likely F1 will be its most competitive next season right before the new regulations and then reset back to being dominated by one team that nails the new regulations.
@@f.kieranfinney457 the cars change for three main reasons: improved safety, improved relevance in auto tech, to make the grid more competitive. For the last one if regulations don’t change the sport will see the dominance of one team for years on straight without giving opportunities for others to catch up without copying designs (i.e merc during 2014-2021)
@@exiledcapybara1690 I disagree with your last part. History has shown that the longer the regulations stay consistent the more competitive it gets. Look at the seasons that led up to the big 2014 changes. It allows the teams that didn’t nail the regulations right out of the gate to catch up. The era you brought up the biggest problem was that Mercedes could still out develop everyone else. With the changes and restrictions on development for the top team that are in place now, that’s not as big of an issue. Just look at how Redbulls dominance is shrinking now. Personally I don’t think they need to make such drastic regulation changes to keep the sport progressing because it seems like they have no idea how to make the cars meet all of the needs for the racing to be competitive and exciting for everyone. I had high hopes for the current cars going back to ground effects but it’s been a big disappointment.
@@f.kieranfinney457 I think they screwed up when they made the current regulations by allowing the cars to become so massive and they’re realizing how much it’s affecting the racing. I don’t know if they can ever get this right. Maybe if biofuels can sway the manufacturers to ditch the hybrid part so the cars can be lighter and smaller and go turbo V6. It doesn’t seem possible to achieve lower weight and size as long as they’re hybrids.
Honestly, a car that's fsst on the straights and slow in the corners means longer braking distances, which probably would lead to more overtakes (of the divebomb type at least)
@@procatprocat9647 I'm for anything that makes F1 less like soccer (futball).... I can appreciate the skill of all involved, but its 90 minutes of eff all with 2 highlights.
@elLooto yes I get that. Lots of fans feel like that, and F1 is losing them. The DTS effect was incredibly strong. The new fans were attracted by the Instagram style soap opera, and the racing was exceptional. They didn't know that it was an exceptional year, so they have been disappointed since and now leaving in their droves. Other fans enjoy other aspects of F1. It is incredibly technical - the level of technicality is only bounded by the ability of the fan to understand and appreciate it. Without fully appreciating the technical aspects, f1 in an average season will definitely come across as dry. The rules are being developed to improve this, but it is inherent that one team will often win the majority of races. The only way to avoid this is to run a spec series. You might enjoy indycar more. The cars are much closer in performance, and there is even more Instagram content than currently in f1. I personally would like the americanisation of f1 to be removed, and also the soap opera aspects removed. The gladiatoroal element needs to be accentuated by continued rule changes. I love the technical aspects, even the compromised decisions that are made. Understanding why a choice was made makes it more palatable.
Actually the calendar this year makes sense with 3 exceptions. Miami, Canada and Singapore. Canada can't be done with the rest of the Americas races due to weather so will always be a challenge. Miami can't be with the rest of Americas either because the stadium is in use for the NFL although we could definitely get rid of that event in my opinion. Singapore isn't ideal but the night race is a fixture and a street circuit so not easily moved but has a big gap after it for that reason
Exactly - all these destructive measures make F1 maybe 0.0001% "more sustainable" - its all about appearances, and for appearances, they kill the sport
You tool, the sustainable fuels and engine regs are meant to be carried over to the real world into road relevant technology. That’s the point of the new engine regulations.
Fatally flawed regs because of the ridiculous engine requirements which are going in completely the wrong direction. More electrical power = more weight = a killing of performance, all for a joke of a net zero fantasy.
They wanted to lose weight but then said more batteries lmaoo And then Net Zero but reducing the efficiency of the engines by removing the MGU-H which is even causing more batteries to be used to try recover that power lmao Then you have the lack of electrical storage as well which means the ICE is going to be used as a generator for the batteries rather than you know…. As an engine lmao The engine regulations for 2026 is nonsense
we already got Formula E for electric, why not run F1 on sustainable fuels? It would be actually more environmentally friendly than electric cars with their batteries made from child labor in third world mines
I find it funny I have had many Vauxhall Astra's over the years I love the SRI 130bhp, I had a 2.0 SRI TDv130 BHP Then I had a 1.6 SRI Petrol, and now I have a 1.2 turbo 130 BHP SRI and here is the kicker no batteries you still feel the power when needed it is only a 3 cylinder engine. A couple of years ago this would have been called witchcraft.
Literally all engine manufacturers wanted these regs. You think you know more? Maybe you can go build the engines since Honda, Mercedes, Renault, Audi would all leave F1 if they go in the opposite direction of these “fatally flawed regulations”.
Just by slowing the cars down in the corners doesn't mean the cars will be more agile. Weight is the key factor when changing direction and fighting for position when cornering.
Instead of using the Active Aero in a similar way to DRS, they can leave it upto the drivers as to when they wish to use it, similar to KERS, that'll make the racing more driver-defined
@@benjaminbrockway5998 i know that very much, but they were talking about laptime so it reminded me of the time endurance cars were so close to f1 cars in laptimes
It's gonna take a helluva lot more than all this to bring F1 all the way down to Hypercar's level. Those things can barely surpass the lap records of pre-nerf Oreca 07 LMP2s. (EDIT: "Welcome back Group C" my ass. Made more power in race trim than the current cars are allowed to.)
It’s pretty simple. Drop the batteries. Lighten the car. Make it smaller. Give it a beautiful ICE engine running on synthetic fuel. Make F1 great again. Oh, and bring back tire wars and maybe refueling…
I think the fundamental problem (which most sports don't have) is trying to balance the "sporting/entertainment" goals with the "relevant to the real world/keep the manufacturers happy" goals. I mean, in football nobody is saying the goal should be a different size because that's more relevant to the real world...
I'm a fan of the slower cornering and faster straights. Look at any other series and you'll notice the longer a car spends in a corner the longer there is for a pass to happen. Spec Miata and NASCAR are great examples
The regulations are gimmicks. They are basically de-tuning the engines to give more power to batteries and weirding out the aerodynamics in order to compensate for screwing around with the engine regs. They are reducing the car’s weights but at the same time forcing them to increase the battery size, which is about the heaviest thing in the cars. They are making racing a battle of fuel economy more than a human competition.
Something I'm curious about... When it comes to the moveable front wing elements... If a driver stuffs the nose of their car into the rear of another Stroll-Style... How would changing the nose of a car work now? I mean, currently you just unscrew it, pull it off and stick a new one on... But if there are moveable elements, there must surely be power supplied to the nose, and given how much an F1 car jostles and bounces about, contacts within the structure surely wouldn't be suitable or reliable enough, which would suggest the use of plugs of some description which could easily be misaligned/broken when swapped quickly
It feels like some people within the FIA sees good racing as a secondary goal, with hybrid-tech development coming first. I understand the desire to develop that stuff, but it shouldn't hijack the entire sport
02:36 Grip comes from the tyres. We could see it in the first 10-12 laps of the Canadian GP. Haas had the extreme wet weather tyres with superior grip compared to the inters. But after the 15th lap the inters started to work producing more grip. And in Canada the majority of the corners are slow(er speed than usual tracks), so downforce is not building up in the corners and tyre grip is the limitation. Downforce comes from aero and it adds onto the existing grip, once the car has enough speed to create downforce. But without the tyres' grip, there is no downforce to stick the car onto the track. Just remember Turkey 2020 (or 2021?). The new surface + the rain didn't provide enough grip. The cars were on ice. And think about the everyday road car. It has no downforce, all the grip comes from the tyres (and also the car's weight, but that's not the key factor).
These regs would be so much easier with something like 25%-30% electric power rather than 50%. I think it would also simplify quite a few things that need to be done for these cars.
Fascinating report. I'm looking forward to seeing the new cars in action, but I don't see how they're going to manage traction and lateral Gs in the corners with smaller tires.
Nah some (like myself) do, formula 1 needs to be the fastest category in motorsport by some distance There’s a reason the 2017 rules came about because the 2014 cars initially were the slowest cars since 1997ish it was quiet *and* slow
8:24 being slower than the current top level prototypes would be an immense and comical feat considering how badly nerfed the final regs for LMH (and LMDh as a result) ended up being. Like, they are straight up slower than an unnerfed LMP2.
MotoGP is going full biofuel in 2027 and it would make so much sense for F1 to do the same. I've made this comment before but there are only so many fuel-producing companies out there, so there HAS to be sharing between the two sports, and it would benefit fuel producers to have multiple places to try their tech. Also, X and Z modes are terrible names. Did an engineer come up with this? We are generally terrible at naming things. It tells you NOTHING about what it is doing or related to.
Engineers don't come up with bad names. If an engineer names something it it explains itself. Something like x or z mode is what a marketing employee would call something. It sounds ridiculous and meaningless. Do not mix these two up.
Such big changes....... What about an all teams generic car to test the technologies, a percentage of all teams budget and resources put into development of 2 or 3 test cars. We would be able to see how technologies work and don't work and how the cars interact with each other on the track.
@@dogger37JC Yes. That is also the issue. Removing hybrid/battery system will make other PU/engine manufacturers like Honda & Audi lose their interest in F1.
A much simpler change that would dramatically improve passing would be to reduce the maximum width of the car by 10 cm and accomplish this primarily by reducing tire width and requiring wing total width to be another 10 cm narrower than the tire track. I expect this would also make the turns more dramatic with cars much closer to drifting. Tgis in turn would drive a harder tire compound, which would also make turns even more dramatic. I'd love to see competitions likecthe old days, with two cars going into a turn side by side, bith drifting madly. This would be uncommon through most of a race because of the wear cost, but toward the end of a race when the win or a championship is on the line, two drivers desperate to beat the other would be going all out.
Mandate sizes back to the 90's era, get rid of the hybrid crap and allow any engine configuration you like as long as you achieve fuel consumption parity
I think that I agree with Nico Rosberg. The most effective way to give the car behind extra pace is not allow the team to manage its ride-height via active or partly-active suspension (giving the teams 2 settings to be set before parc fermé), so that the loss of downforce and shift in balance of the car behind can be partially negated. I don't think that we want to give the car behind a similar level of downforce simply by it being there. But I am not too sure of myself here. Nor am I too sure of the FIA's current vision. Ground-effect *definetly* helped improve the ability to follow. Maybe we need more of it and, in turn, reduce the wings even further, perhaps with a defined regulation box for each type of circuit as, for instance, reducing the regulation boxes for the wings, by itself, will not reduce wing sizes at Monza or Spa.
It would make sense for f1 to be the fastest series, but I really do think that entertainment and the ability to race should take priority. F1 has so many new fans due to Netflix. How long are they going to stick around with 1 or 2 good races per year?
Oh please, if F1 had just stuck with common sense they wouldn't need to use the american netflix brainwashing propaganda in the first place. If you put entertainment in the first place, you get america, a fucking circus, a fake scripted show, a bunch of bullshit.
@SilverScarletSpider so bigger fuel tanks? V10s used 240kg of fuel. 2026 will use 80kg. Do you want quarter of a tonne of petrol in the car at the start? Is that your dream?
They could allow for regen braking BEFORE the active areo goes full downforce to get more energy into the batteries.. changing areo to high Z mode before braking will slow the car a lot before regen...
I am not optimistic about the quality of racing we’re about to see. I hope I’m wrong, but this feels like it will take a few years for any team to get right if they ever do.
Speed and aerodinamic downforce make overtaking harder. If people want more close racing, we need slower cars in the corners by reducing downforce generated by the wings, thus slowing down cars.
“Too slow in the corners” sounds like another way of putting “more technical in the corners” ie rewards better, more precise driving and allows for some passing mid corner, kart-style. Is that not the case?
That comment also had me baffled. Present the constructors with a challenge, and they will overcome it. At Monaco, they're already dealing with the Lowes/Fairmont Hairpin.
this is nothing new. i think my first gp was 89 in adelaide. unless you know someone in one of the surrounding buildings somewhere like adelaide or melbourne you go check out the atmosphere on friday/saturday but you stay home on sunday to watch the race. doesnt apply in a lot of places, the Australian Unity building across from Albert Park you can see the whole lot (got to watch from there a couple of times, and worked at the gp a couple of years), but i dont think theres anywhere in Monaco for instance you can do that, and certainly not on purpose built non city centre races. If youre actually working there and would have to be there sunday you *always* work night shifts. clock off 10am with a full all access pass and a 'im meant to be here' uniform is great fun.
I always thought they should have a few static cameras on the track walls. Like at the indy 500 with the flowers being blown around by the air of the cars going past over 200mph. It really shows the speed.
it would be cool if they made the cars even slimmer and more powerful so we could get the early 2000's type super nimble cars back because they look so much faster and more exciting, even though they are slower.
I hope it’s not just ONE downforce setting for 2026. That would be very bad for tracks with varying downforce configuration requirements (like Monza, Monaco, Catalunya, Qatar, Hungaro-ring etc.).
More nimble is the same as agile. These rules don't allow active aero, it's just front and rear drs. Active aero allows the car to continuously adjust wing levels throughout the lap.
Active aero is just that, aero components that are active and not static. They don’t need to be run by a computer analyzing every corner improving lap times each lap.
Every time they bring up the active aero, I have visions of a driver suffering a double wing failure at the bottom of Eau Rouge. I believe I can fly...
They're shrinking the cars, it's a start. The heavy will come next, but F1 doesn't get fully sustainable fuel until 2026 so would have been a huge gamble to do the full switch back to ICE at once.
Marginally smaller car but much heavier PU. Narrowing tires seems really dumb. 16” would make them Lighter and easier to see over for drivers. It’s such an obvious choice. I’d rather see active suspension to an active aero. It’s going to cause a lot of instability in transit from straight to corner. Dive bombs will be super dicey. More crashes. Much slower corner speeds is NOT F1. It’s supposed to be the sport’s signature feature. These new cars will be like IndyCars. Yuck. Maybe slightly better on street tracks but awful on the proper race tracks. Maybe that’s the plan? Turn the whole series into street racing.
I wish that one day rules will be simpler, as just a box inside wich the car should fit to limit the overall size, minimum weight and safety specs within a limited budget, maybe a drag wake control so the cars do not to become unfollowable but otherwise no rules...it would be way more interesting to see.
What happened to the cost cap? Changing rules in such a dramatic way is one thing, but they saying they can be adjusted and relaxed is going to result in costly redesign and testing.
This is the third or fourth video I have watched on the subject, and as a 2-3 year fan I still have no idea what any if this means, what effect any of it may have, or WHY they are doing it or WHAT they are hoping to accomplish, so the FIA is failing miserably at communicating to new fans.
Teams vetoed front axle electric motor and now bitch and whine that the car would be too slow. Fine, add the front motor then. Will also recuperate more energy.
So in the rain, DRS is turned off. Does that mean from 2026 onwards if the track is wet the mode changes will be disabled? That would make the cars way to slow over the full lap, limit recharge and overtaking 🤔
Who cares if it’s slower if we get good racing! You can’t really tell the difference on tv between 220mph and 180mph and the differences will like be way less drastic anyway like the last few times they’ve claimed the cars will be much slower! I just want good races!!!
The good racing requires high downforce and corner speeds to make those epic overtakes we love. Top speed doesn’t matter. Downforce does. And these regs get that part way wrong. Racing will suffer.
Why aren't you watching running or cycling then? If the speed, sound, looks etc. don't matter go and watch any other kind of racing. I care about the racing and even with lower speeds, these regs will ruin it. No drag is the death of slipstreams. No DRS means overtakes will become rare beyond imagination. And a energy button which will double your bhp means defending will become easier than ever since you only use it in overtaking spots. Go and enjoy watching net zero processions from 2026 onwards, I'm out after 2025.
Definitely liking the competition from the WEC boys over the the f1 group .... a lot could be learnt a lot here.. manufacturers are turning up here different design philosophies and the racing is action packed too.. its more how F1 should be imo
to fix racing dey ditch hybrid like WRC Did it not make any difference environmentaly in comparison with whole transport F1 use to move teams around the globe. Also this will reduce weight, overheating the brakes and car can be smaller
Literally everyone: we want smaller, lighter more agile cars with freer engine regulations using sustainable fuel allowing for better sounding engines. The FIA: the best I can do is large heavy cars keeping the same engine but with reduced power for a 50/50 hybrid energy split. Oh and the cars can't use their full power for 70% of the race.
Ok: easy fix: keep chassis rules. Strike the Active Aero. Give the cars the same fuel flow again, allow any 1600cc 6 cylinder forced induction engine. So any bank angle, any Turbo configuration, any bore, any stroke. Give the ERS 100kW in normal mode and 200kW in a Push to Pass mode. Done. To make cars more consistant: allow active suspension, but only on the third spring. This allows AoA and rideheight control.
And the field has finally tightened too with the wind tunnel restrictions doing their job. This and next season look to be extremely competitive. Why change ‘26 and then again in ‘30? Make the chassis changes in ‘26 and then PU in ‘30. By then the global car market will have stabilized and we’ll know where the tech is headed so manufacturers can capitalize on their F1 research. It would help bring in GM and allow Audi more time too. Maybe even Toyota would consider, if renewable fuels are a bigger part. EV sales are slowing. Every country seems to be back peddling on full electric. Let’s wait!
@@f.kieranfinney457 yes honestly i dont get why they want to rush things this much. Current regs are only 3 years old… and honestly, i dont remember any team being so worried about 2022 regs back in 2020…
Dropping the MGU-H is a joke. They're well developed and reliable, and fundamentally are a pinnacle of efficiency and using less fuel which i thought was the whole point. Just freeze them and keep using them with more battery power.
I’m reminded how when Grand Prix cars changed from 2.5l to 1.5l for 1962 everyone said it would be a disaster and slow however the 1.5l era led to some glorious racing…
If your point with this comment is that hysteria over new rules rarely leads anywhere, then fair enough I guess. That said, we're at a point now where the teams have to politick their way to a less restrictive set of rules, versus 1962 where the rulebook was barely any thicker than a laptop. Far more significant evolution was possible then v. now, so I don't think we can rely on the engineers to breakdance around the rules the way they used to (at least, not as much). I might be wrong though. That, and something else: the 1.5L cars are largely overshadowed by the 3.0L cars that directly succeeded them for a reason.
On the contary, I remember in 68.4Ma when they banned the T-Rex for being too large, and the pterodactyls ended up dominating by just flying over everyone else.
@@mitchell-wallisforce7859 You are absolutely correct in your interpretation of my view on such “hysteria”. You also right about how the 3l formula and how it led to what in my view was probably the greatest era in F1…
The science and math just doesn't add up on this. If you make your cars very low drag slipstreaming will cease to exist. Simultaneously removing DRS will make the overtaking problem even worse. And 50% of your PU output being from electric energy for harvesting capabilities are way too low in the new regs to be able to use consistently in a race, means defending drivers will have an easy time defending with double the power by only using it in overtaking zones whilst attacking drivers need to use it to keep up with them through the dirty air. The change you mention only made the cars a bit slower, something easily offset by the big developments of aero in that time. Those developments are way smaller now with more restrictive rules meaning its hard to make cars a lot faster in a short amount of time. It also opens up the door for one team getting it very right and dominating like Merc did in 2014 who had no competition for 3 seasons straight.
I thought I saw a video about drivers complaining they will go too fast down the straights and will misjudge the corners, as long as the drivers have the pre-2022 grip again, sounds great to me. A driver should now how much speed he needs to take to judge his braking points.
Green tech should have never entered F1, its such a nieche and specific sport it should have a free hand in my view. In the same vein we haven't stopped racing horses just because cars exist, F1 should be allowed to just use whatever they want to make 1. Racing exciting and 2. Enable drivers at every point to show off their skills, not pander to green lobby. There are 20 of these cars racing every week or 2 weeks, how much difference do they think becoming green will make to the environment :P
I agree completely. It’s all greenwashing. And nobody mentions how much they travel all over the world during a season. Maybe make their cargo planes run off biofuel?
@@Mtbbodhi they will get to synthetic fuels for planes. That would help even more than using it in cars. Short flight planes can be electric too. The cargo ships the move team gear around the world could definitely benefit from alt fuels like hydrogen converting to electricity to drive E-motors. Diesel electric trains have been a thing for decades and could swap to hydrogen. It’s possible to make diesel electric transport trucks (being done in BC right now) which means synthetic fuel or hydrogen ICE to electric trucks are possible. All good targets. But it’s the F1 cars that get all the eyeballs. If you want to show new tech, improve efficiency (everyone agrees efficiency is good), then you put the tech in the F1 cars.
I wouldn't have watched F1 it it was similar to horse racing. That's an old sport that might be exciting to some, but not very inspirational or modern. The use of cutting edge technology in F1 is what makes it interesting. I personally love the added complexity in strategy and all the metrics you get to see.
@@f.kieranfinney457 I agree but I think F1 is also and I would argue primarly racing, I think they should have go all in on synthetic fuel, we know it works so as cutting edge sport not invest in something that will change everything.
@@Hungary_0987 The teams will find a way to outwash as much air as possible, that's why the rules change every so often, so that the teams can just keep perfecting and bending over and over.
I do like the idea of this active aero but I think the teams should have more control over it like the active suspension from the 90s Instead of it just being on and off like the DRS. teams should have the ability to set up the active aero however they want: that would give teams more flexibility to put less drag on the straights and more downforce in the slow stuff or give the option to flip it. Giving teams a new avenue in terms of strategy or ways to suit their cars or drivers. And also have the move from x to z-mode on the straights more progressive related to speed instead of just flipping between the two. Hopefully that all makes sense 😂
Cars getting increasingly more complex, expensive(?) and difficult to master for drivers Every regulations change - it’s like entering a different racing series for drivers. By the time drivers get truly adjusted, feel these new cars and are capable of fine/intuitive control required for great racing - regs are changed again and we’re back to square one, drivers having to fight new cars instead of each other
I prefer 50/50 as 5 cylinders on one side of the engine, and 5 more on the right side of the engine.
😂😂😂
Thats.... Pretty creative! Aprooved!
Perfectly balanced!
Personally, I'm a fan of 6 x 6 layout between left side and right side
Rather keep the current six cylinders and put these on one side of the engine. I would love some 3.2 liter V12s.
FIA: "Make your cars lighter!"
also FIA: "here's a massive battery you have to use!"
Dont forget about massive fuel tanks, which will be required to recharge ERS once MGU-H is gone!
@@ritabuba4831 shit bait
yeah that's ridiculous, with addition of 30kg PU minimum weight, the chassis needs to be ~60kg lighter than the current one if they want to achieve 768kg minimum weight. Even with 20cm shorter and 10cm narrower footprint that's beyond optimistic
And a massive fuel tank because we are afraid of refueling despite every other race series being able to allow it safely. Seriously? An F1 constructor can make the fastest race car in the world but can't figure out refueling? Get out of my face!
@@ritabuba4831or even 250kgs extra weight on the BoP (Performance Balancing).
3:31
No, just to be clear it's not the engine that's getting heavier, infact it's lighter than ever
It's the battery and hybrid components that are getting heavier
The engine is slightly heavier by 6 kgs in fact.
the v6 alone is abnormally heavy, more than 100kg. check out scarbs talking about it
How can the battery be heavier if the capacity stays the same? Do they adds rocks to the batteries now?
@@bltzcstrnx Higher discharge rate battery chemistries have a gravimetric density disadvantage when compared to lower discharge rate chemistries. Thus the same capcity weighs more since it needs to output more power and the chemistry needs to change for that to occur.
@@bltzcstrnx probably bigger cables and cooling to handle the higher discharge/charge rate?
Throw away the batteries, run on sustainable fuel. Weight solved, racing solved, still environment friendly.
Not gonna happen because it will most likely work.
We can only dream!
pretty sure its the manufactureers that are pushing it as the technology is very valuable to them in their real world cars
Not going to happen because the only reason why Ford and Audi joined is because of the increased hybridity.
@@luke45879 Ford joined for marketing. I doubt they care tbh. They'd rather just slap an emblem on the RBPT than have to hire 200 engineers to make batteries and hybrid systems
Honestly by time we get to 2026 no one will even talk about X or Z mode, it'll just be how the cars run, and manual override will be called MOM mode or something
I thought MOM means "Medal Of Millionaire".
You're probably right!
I think the front wing is the biggest pitfall!
A small touch and you lose the active aero and your car becomes deathly dangerous!
Front wing damage is a regular occurrence and wether you keep racing with the loss or stop to change it you can salvage your race , but with active aero wings I'm not sure how easy are they to change with actuaters, hydrolics and electronics in the front wing.
@@MMAli-rq8kdYou are right, and all this within an ever shrinking Budget. Imagine the cost of a damaged front wing!
They will have to package and independent hydraulic or electronic system for controlling the front wing while ensuring that it is not fragile and can also be easily replaced during a pitstop.
X-Games mode.
Just call them Zoom and Whoa modes.
Yuki gonna win world championship in 2026 by weight difference, lets goooo!
They use ballast to even out drivers weight differences. Your joke attempt is Japanophobic (that's a joke).
@@phillgizmo8934 ohhh dear whats that? a bird? a plane?
nope it... it appears to be the joke flying over your head
@@DAGATHire
The joke could only work on people who are ignorant of the technical rules.
Obviously, phillgizmo did his homework, and the only thing he find comedic about it, is the OP's ignorance of the rule.
@@NicholasLatipi OMG go outside you two and run around a rock or some shite.
No. Possibly Norris.
I don't want to watch who can save the most energy tyres etc.. I want to see drivers and teams pushing to the limit of technology and what is physically possible at all times because that's what makes F1 attractive. It is infuriating to see cars 5 - 6 seconds slower on Sunday over Saturday. It's frustrating to see cars almost 150kg heavier than they should be and driving like tanks. 650kg (excluding driver) should be the limit with all the modern safety required in my opinion.
Well considering pole time has always been around 4 seconds faster than the fastest lap time, you've been "infuriated" for decades
This is an insane comment because we can literally tell you’re making it up as you go. If you only want to watch a series that “pushes the limit of technology at all times” you’ve been in the wrong place for the last 25 years.
As mentioned above too - cars have been multiple seconds slower in the race vs quali for decades even with refueling. You been watching? You can’t even tell the difference between a 1:17 and 1:19 watching the car run (as evidenced by commentators like Martin on a weekly basis) so who cares? Outside of the extreme scenarios like Monaco this year you’re just searching for a problem that doesn’t exist
They are literally pushing the limits of technology. That's exactly what these changes do with going as fast or faster while using less energy to do it over a race distance.
I don't really give a toss about how fast the cars are, I just want good racing. If you want to see people "pushing to the limit of technology and what is physically possible" maybe just like... sign up to a science magazine or something?
@@fairsaa7975 He means the technology in motor racing, don't play dumb 😆 I kinda agree but I mostly blame the cost cap... Even with strict restrictions if you keep researching and spending money you will always find a loophole or a workaround to make your car faster. I get that this makes the teams be closer but I think it's making it a bit static. I mean it took 1,5 year for a team to catch up to redbull which carried a penalty on windtunnel time on top of the cut off because of their first place.
They should’ve opened certain areas of the combustion engine for development.
Since 2014 they’ve pretty much mastered combustion control but engines are still limited with turbo geometry, the valve train etc
Areas that could easily see the thermal efficiency of the engines improve even further
Turbo geometry in 2022 somehow even better than in 2014.
Theory about the naming of the X and Z mode, based on experience from the automotive sector.
Cars are designed in a coordinate system where the X-axis is longitudinal, Y is transversal an Z is vertical. Drag on a car is a force working in the X-direction while downforce works in the Z-direction, so it’s all fairly logical for an Engineer.
They could've just called it active mode ON and OFF instead of some Star Wars X wing mode
Too bad F1 isn't meant to be watched by engineers only X)
Why not speed mode / grip mode so everyone can easily undestand ?
Very true, for me as an engineer from the car industry it is totally logical and it is probably how the engineers were talking about the modes when developing them. But they should've taken a step away from their engineers mindset and make it more logical for others as well when they published their idea. A downforce mode and a drag reduction mode would have satisfied both.
nailed it!
@@haribo836 ...true enough, but we are acting like X and Z modes are difficult to understand. X and Z is pretty cool I think. I'm no engineer, but most everyone should be able to understand the X,Y and Z axis if they understand concepts like drag reduction and downforce?.... 10/10 name for me as a casual fan. Overall though, it seems like F1 is doing way to much with the formula these days. I'd like to see skilled/entertaining/competitive racing not sacrificed for engineering. Seems like F1 has just been making changes to make changes or for reasons that are not with great racing at the forefront? Cheers.
They want them to drive electric rockets on wheels. It’s not about the cars or engines anymore, some tracks are struggling to get a race with these cars and they aren’t helping it.
More like electric scooters. All stock. And enviromentally friendly, pegging friendly.
Personally, I like (Granted, I might be vastly underestimating just how important it is) that the minimum weight is not guaranteed, but rather a goal to strive for for the teams.
That way though is a sure fire way to have parts failure induced crashes like the early days that killed drivers. I think it’s better to make it easy to hit the limit. And certainly safer. And fairer.
Big budget teams will just setup other businesses to study material science and that create super light components for some other sport (bicycles, cars, motorcycles) like they do now with boats, learning aero tricks that don’t abuse the cost cap. RB, Aston, Ferrari, McLaren and Mercedes all do this currently with sailing boats and other auto racing series like WEC and Indy.
The divide will simply grow.
I think it’s better to make targets affordable and let them spend money and talent on the aero and PU.
I wish it was 600kg then.
@@f.kieranfinney457 The concern about part failures is understandable but what really got drivers killed in the old days were the paper mâché construction of the chassis themselves. John Watson walking away from a hideous wreck in the 80's because of his carbon-tubbed McLaren MP4/1 proves this. Suspension pieces could snap now, but the cars themselves are so strong that the meatbags inside are usually fine.
With that in mind, I'm with OP. The FIA puts these cars through crash-testing for a reason, so as long as they're passing those tests, I haven't a problem with hard-to-hit weight targets.
For all the talk of leveling the playing field, F1 still has backmarkers. Even BoP classes have backmarkers. The divide will always exist, and if less-strictly defined limits mean that divide grows, I wouldn't care.
it could be that if the engines are even remotely equal in power, whoever hits the minimum weight could dominate. but personally I think we should just go with these slightly radical rules and then start fixing them at the start of 26 once we see how the cars run
That's what it always has been. Now the weight limit is also the goal to reach and teams were overweight in 2022. The goal is to be underweight so you can 'play' with the ballast placement and weight distribution.
I'm so glad to have witness the glory V10 era compared to this current nonsense of tire/power/battery/grandma management instead of pure all out racing.
Wait till you hear about fuel
Some of us experienced the inline 4, straight 6, straight 8, V-8, Flat 8, V-6, V-12, flat 12, H-16, V-16, P& W turbo-shaft and V-10 eras. They were all more interesting than the current "Prius Formula" cars. Of course they lacked any modern safety requirements. Mix those safety features in and turn the designers loose. Why couldn't Audi run inline 5's? Or, Ford run V-8's? Or, Ferrari V-12's? For that matter, how about a Honda 24 cylinder X engine (four banks of 6 cylinders)? Heavy as heck but crazy amounts of power at a gazillion rpm. Soon, we'll have electric scooters, with wings. Yippee. [please note the sarcasm]
@@michaeldelaney7271 I loves those eras, but this year has produced some of the most compelling racing in a long time - that or Verstappen losing terrain has just made it seem that way.
@@issahgyandi3365 I agree. As you said, we probably have Red Bull's lack of pace to thank for the apparent competitiveness. And, the regulations require almost identical cars and engines. Isn't it odd that since Adrian Newey said he was leaving, that Red Bulls have gotten less and less competitive? The team has said he "really wasn't all that important anymore." Really? These modern "Prius Formula" cars will never stir the blood like a howling Ferrari 12 (vee or flat), a Honda V10, a screaming Matra V-12 or even a good old Ford-Cosworth DFV V-8.
@@michaeldelaney7271I cannot wait for the Byrd scooter F1 championship.
We need someone to start a V10 open wheel racing series completely separate to F1. Watch the fans move over.
I was just thinking that
Frankly, I would like the cars to get a little bit smaller than that, but allow less restrictions on performance. That keeps the racing, since smaller cars allow for easier overtakes, and keeps the incentive for innovations.
"Less restrictions on performance" sounds great for innovation and creativity, which is almost outlawed now. But smaller cars are faster cars (in a straight line) and faster cars have higher energy crashes so we have to watch out for "unintended consequences."
It's not really possible with all that hybrid and battery at the rear. They are very very cautious with the crash safety as well, we are stuck with this for many years.
Williams' complaints about the weight limit show their fear. Remember when Sauber was faster in 2022 because they met the minimum weight? That's the beauty of the weight limit. Vowles is worried because Williams is behind on reducing the car's weight and will likely struggle with the 2026 rules as well.
Sauber even got shafted that year as they arbitrarily increased the minimum weight to 798kg even though they could reach the 795kg
Probably cost them some points
In the end it was actually bad for Sauber that they met the minumum weight. As at the start of 2022 everyone thought that they had good car but it was just cause other cars where overweight. When other team started to get the weight down Sauber was left in the back and they are still there.
Sauber can only went below minimum weight cuz they made the wheelbase shorter, but as soon as others were able save weight even with longer wheelbase, Sauber can't improve as much in terms of aerodynamic performance since their chassis was limiting the performance
@@Kornn66Alfa Romeo Sauber in 2022 actually done pretty well though.
@@RANDOMZBOSSMAN1the same also in last year.
The "30% reduction in downforce" will probably start out as 15% during testing and end up being 1% by the start of the second season.
Issue is they’ve given us absolutely no freedom in the draft rule set. Right now there is literally no freedom. Lots of geometry is prescribed by the fia. So there is no changing allowed by the teams.
@@pbutok The 2026 rules are just another step on the road to a One Design Formula, like NASCAR and Indycar. The next set of regulations after that, will either require all teams to manufacture the same FIA design in their own shops or, simply eliminate the middleman and, require everyone to use an FIA supplied chassis manufactured by Dallara. Perhaps they will allow each team to apply any logo they wish to the cam covers of an FIA provided engine.
In 2022 they lost 15 % this season they gained 10% compared to 2022 considering it isn’t a complete overhaul but more a tweak I think we will look at maybe a rough 8 tenths off the 2022 times
@@Faiz_Azad-Khan again it’s not really about the outright speed. The issue with the current regs is freedom. They are so prescriptive there is very little room for any difference in design between different teams. That’s very anti f1 in my eyes.
@@pbutok yeah but when there is freedom you’ll get stuff like DAS, blown diffusers, f ducts others will try and copy but fail or even completely ruin their season because back then we did not have the knowledge or data to come up with really crazy stuff but now we do and for safety and the integrity of the sport this is the solution
Considering a lot of us understood easily Hypersoft,Ultrasoft,supersoft,soft, medium, hard, very hard tyres....the whole casual thing is nonsense. The casual fans that watch f1 now dont watch the racing they watch for their favourite drivers to thirst over.
Super-duper softs gives you 6 laps
Have they considered cute, very cute, and super cute settings for Ricciardo's smile? That's the only reason I watch. And because of the ROCKSTAR LIFESTYLES of the drivers.
Bullshit lmao
@@chadchadchadchadchad 😐
@@JJ-xt2dq what?
"You should be lighter, more nimble."
"You should have less downforce"
"Here's a big ass battery"
what a joke.
2026 F1 car going to sound like a vacuum cleaner
Sorry, but the battery capacity is the same as the previous one. I think people use the battery as scapegoat.
It's not a joke, it's a step on the path to a sustainable racing machine that future generations can continue to enjoy as fossil fuels become obsolete. Also, the weight of the battery doesn't do anything to down force... Not sure what that added to your flippant response. Just complaining because the drivers might need to drive better? Idk.
getting rid of the batteries solves alot of problems; weight, size, engine sound, cost, reliability
Tbh I don't believe the teams, we have a constructors championship for a reason let them compete with difficult rules. Cars never end up being as slow as they say and after 2 years the development makes them 2 or 3 seconds faster anyway.
💯 well said
Exactly, I have faith in them figuring it out
Exactly. They’ve said this same thing before and what you said always happens.
Teams: the rules are obviously nonsense and badly thought out.
Random people on the internet: nuh uh the rules are good actually 🤓
FIA thought 22 regs would create close racing. They were wrong. They have admitted 26 cars will be slower. Who wants that? And it’s where they are slower that concerns me. We want high cornering speeds , high downforce and don’t really care about straight line. Without downforce they won’t be able to pass at corner entry because these cars will be unstable in transition, swapping Z to X mode. Everyone will have DRS on the straight so no overtaking there either.
Does not add up to great racing. Sounds like DRS trains on steroids.
Nope. Nope. Nope.
Sounds much like the same stuff the media and teams say every time there’s a big regulation change. Most likely F1 will be its most competitive next season right before the new regulations and then reset back to being dominated by one team that nails the new regulations.
So then why change?!!
@f.kieranfinney457 if there was no change, current cars would look like 1950s f1 cars.
@@f.kieranfinney457 the cars change for three main reasons: improved safety, improved relevance in auto tech, to make the grid more competitive. For the last one if regulations don’t change the sport will see the dominance of one team for years on straight without giving opportunities for others to catch up without copying designs (i.e merc during 2014-2021)
@@exiledcapybara1690 I disagree with your last part. History has shown that the longer the regulations stay consistent the more competitive it gets. Look at the seasons that led up to the big 2014 changes. It allows the teams that didn’t nail the regulations right out of the gate to catch up. The era you brought up the biggest problem was that Mercedes could still out develop everyone else. With the changes and restrictions on development for the top team that are in place now, that’s not as big of an issue. Just look at how Redbulls dominance is shrinking now. Personally I don’t think they need to make such drastic regulation changes to keep the sport progressing because it seems like they have no idea how to make the cars meet all of the needs for the racing to be competitive and exciting for everyone. I had high hopes for the current cars going back to ground effects but it’s been a big disappointment.
@@f.kieranfinney457 I think they screwed up when they made the current regulations by allowing the cars to become so massive and they’re realizing how much it’s affecting the racing. I don’t know if they can ever get this right. Maybe if biofuels can sway the manufacturers to ditch the hybrid part so the cars can be lighter and smaller and go turbo V6. It doesn’t seem possible to achieve lower weight and size as long as they’re hybrids.
Honestly, a car that's fsst on the straights and slow in the corners means longer braking distances, which probably would lead to more overtakes (of the divebomb type at least)
My point exactly.
Corners also take longer so mid corner action is more likely.
Win win win
@@procatprocat9647 I'm for anything that makes F1 less like soccer (futball).... I can appreciate the skill of all involved, but its 90 minutes of eff all with 2 highlights.
@elLooto yes I get that.
Lots of fans feel like that, and F1 is losing them. The DTS effect was incredibly strong. The new fans were attracted by the Instagram style soap opera, and the racing was exceptional.
They didn't know that it was an exceptional year, so they have been disappointed since and now leaving in their droves.
Other fans enjoy other aspects of F1. It is incredibly technical - the level of technicality is only bounded by the ability of the fan to understand and appreciate it.
Without fully appreciating the technical aspects, f1 in an average season will definitely come across as dry.
The rules are being developed to improve this, but it is inherent that one team will often win the majority of races. The only way to avoid this is to run a spec series.
You might enjoy indycar more. The cars are much closer in performance, and there is even more Instagram content than currently in f1.
I personally would like the americanisation of f1 to be removed, and also the soap opera aspects removed.
The gladiatoroal element needs to be accentuated by continued rule changes. I love the technical aspects, even the compromised decisions that are made. Understanding why a choice was made makes it more palatable.
Which also means shit cars. If you want more overtaking and evenly competitive teams, go watch a fucking stock series.
I love the new focus on sustainability in the power unit, meanwhile the F1 procession jumps from one side of the world to the other every two weeks.
Actually the calendar this year makes sense with 3 exceptions. Miami, Canada and Singapore. Canada can't be done with the rest of the Americas races due to weather so will always be a challenge. Miami can't be with the rest of Americas either because the stadium is in use for the NFL although we could definitely get rid of that event in my opinion. Singapore isn't ideal but the night race is a fixture and a street circuit so not easily moved but has a big gap after it for that reason
@@danielraeburn3718the gaps between them can be quite severe.
It's a joke, isn't it.
Exactly - all these destructive measures make F1 maybe 0.0001% "more sustainable" - its all about appearances, and for appearances, they kill the sport
You tool, the sustainable fuels and engine regs are meant to be carried over to the real world into road relevant technology.
That’s the point of the new engine regulations.
Fatally flawed regs because of the ridiculous engine requirements which are going in completely the wrong direction. More electrical power = more weight = a killing of performance, all for a joke of a net zero fantasy.
They wanted to lose weight but then said more batteries lmaoo
And then Net Zero but reducing the efficiency of the engines by removing the MGU-H which is even causing more batteries to be used to try recover that power lmao
Then you have the lack of electrical storage as well which means the ICE is going to be used as a generator for the batteries rather than you know…. As an engine lmao
The engine regulations for 2026 is nonsense
we already got Formula E for electric, why not run F1 on sustainable fuels? It would be actually more environmentally friendly than electric cars with their batteries made from child labor in third world mines
I find it funny I have had many Vauxhall Astra's over the years I love the SRI 130bhp, I had a 2.0 SRI TDv130 BHP
Then I had a 1.6 SRI Petrol, and now I have a 1.2 turbo 130 BHP SRI
and here is the kicker no batteries you still feel the power when needed it is only a 3 cylinder engine. A couple of years ago this would have been called witchcraft.
@@mclarenjohnf1Vauxhall Astra SRi still is an underrated car till today.
Literally all engine manufacturers wanted these regs. You think you know more?
Maybe you can go build the engines since Honda, Mercedes, Renault, Audi would all leave F1 if they go in the opposite direction of these “fatally flawed regulations”.
9:07 Since 1950, F1™ always complicated, thats what i like
Just by slowing the cars down in the corners doesn't mean the cars will be more agile. Weight is the key factor when changing direction and fighting for position when cornering.
Life is going to be difficult for the tires in the corners.
Instead of using the Active Aero in a similar way to DRS, they can leave it upto the drivers as to when they wish to use it, similar to KERS, that'll make the racing more driver-defined
"Fears of being overtaken by endurance cars"
WELCOME BACK GROUP C RACING WE ARE SO FUCKING BACK 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
I mean, F1 has already been overtaken by the LMH/LMDh cars in terms of quality of racing.
@@benjaminbrockway5998 i know that very much, but they were talking about laptime so it reminded me of the time endurance cars were so close to f1 cars in laptimes
It's gonna take a helluva lot more than all this to bring F1 all the way down to Hypercar's level. Those things can barely surpass the lap records of pre-nerf Oreca 07 LMP2s.
(EDIT: "Welcome back Group C" my ass. Made more power in race trim than the current cars are allowed to.)
Yes now wec just needs to get rid of that massive paywall or at least make the price less ridiculous,and people might actually give a shit
Died in 1992, born in 2024
Welcome back, GROUP C
It’s pretty simple.
Drop the batteries.
Lighten the car.
Make it smaller.
Give it a beautiful ICE engine running on synthetic fuel.
Make F1 great again. Oh, and bring back tire wars and maybe refueling…
refueling is shit...way to many incidents with that, we dont need that.
I think the fundamental problem (which most sports don't have) is trying to balance the "sporting/entertainment" goals with the "relevant to the real world/keep the manufacturers happy" goals. I mean, in football nobody is saying the goal should be a different size because that's more relevant to the real world...
Actually the size of the goals was increased at least once (because too small a goal is too easy to defend).
There is no balance of the "sporting/entertainment" goals. Sport is entirely secondary.
Racing should be improved by increasing top speed and slowing the corners.
Braking distances will also be increased for increased overtaking time.
Okay Indycar
@@andrewloera5641 okay AR2L
And making the cars smaller and narrower so they have more room to dice it up!
I'm a fan of the slower cornering and faster straights. Look at any other series and you'll notice the longer a car spends in a corner the longer there is for a pass to happen. Spec Miata and NASCAR are great examples
Time under braking is usually the key issue rather than time in the corner.
The regulations are gimmicks. They are basically de-tuning the engines to give more power to batteries and weirding out the aerodynamics in order to compensate for screwing around with the engine regs. They are reducing the car’s weights but at the same time forcing them to increase the battery size, which is about the heaviest thing in the cars. They are making racing a battle of fuel economy more than a human competition.
Can't believe the FIA did't mandate larger mirrors.
F1 is in accessible to casual fans anyway when you have to pay sky high subscription fees or a small mortgage to go to a race
DTS viewing figures disagree with you.
@@procatprocat9647 DTS is Netflix, not Sky...
Something I'm curious about... When it comes to the moveable front wing elements... If a driver stuffs the nose of their car into the rear of another Stroll-Style... How would changing the nose of a car work now? I mean, currently you just unscrew it, pull it off and stick a new one on... But if there are moveable elements, there must surely be power supplied to the nose, and given how much an F1 car jostles and bounces about, contacts within the structure surely wouldn't be suitable or reliable enough, which would suggest the use of plugs of some description which could easily be misaligned/broken when swapped quickly
It feels like some people within the FIA sees good racing as a secondary goal, with hybrid-tech development coming first. I understand the desire to develop that stuff, but it shouldn't hijack the entire sport
It's pressure from eco-weenies, probably. Probably something from the EU, too
Have a Formula hybrid league and leave F1 to be petrol only, the pinnacle of speed, sound etc.
02:36 Grip comes from the tyres. We could see it in the first 10-12 laps of the Canadian GP. Haas had the extreme wet weather tyres with superior grip compared to the inters. But after the 15th lap the inters started to work producing more grip. And in Canada the majority of the corners are slow(er speed than usual tracks), so downforce is not building up in the corners and tyre grip is the limitation.
Downforce comes from aero and it adds onto the existing grip, once the car has enough speed to create downforce.
But without the tyres' grip, there is no downforce to stick the car onto the track. Just remember Turkey 2020 (or 2021?). The new surface + the rain didn't provide enough grip. The cars were on ice.
And think about the everyday road car. It has no downforce, all the grip comes from the tyres (and also the car's weight, but that's not the key factor).
I don't want to say 'told you so',
but the powertrain mess, where engine just works as battery charger? It was obvious from the beginning.
These regs would be so much easier with something like 25%-30% electric power rather than 50%. I think it would also simplify quite a few things that need to be done for these cars.
Might as well make it a full electric car!
Oh wait……
Fascinating report. I'm looking forward to seeing the new cars in action, but I don't see how they're going to manage traction and lateral Gs in the corners with smaller tires.
Most normal fans don't care about them being slower as they do about being more exciting to watch
Nah some (like myself) do, formula 1 needs to be the fastest category in motorsport by some distance
There’s a reason the 2017 rules came about because the 2014 cars initially were the slowest cars since 1997ish it was quiet *and* slow
That's very true
As long as they are still able to ride all kerbs round corners, that's exciting!
@@RANDOMZBOSSMAN1 But what's the point in being able to hit 350km/h if it's just going to be a procession?
I think very few fans want to see a slower car.
I’m just afraid that maybe one race, the wings won’t change out of X mode and will lead the driver to crash due to the lack of downforce.
I just want them to go to 3L v8 turbo 1000hp engine, they can choose twin turbo or single turbo, or give them LMDh engine rules
8:24 being slower than the current top level prototypes would be an immense and comical feat considering how badly nerfed the final regs for LMH (and LMDh as a result) ended up being. Like, they are straight up slower than an unnerfed LMP2.
MotoGP is going full biofuel in 2027 and it would make so much sense for F1 to do the same. I've made this comment before but there are only so many fuel-producing companies out there, so there HAS to be sharing between the two sports, and it would benefit fuel producers to have multiple places to try their tech.
Also, X and Z modes are terrible names. Did an engineer come up with this? We are generally terrible at naming things. It tells you NOTHING about what it is doing or related to.
Engineers don't come up with bad names. If an engineer names something it it explains itself. Something like x or z mode is what a marketing employee would call something. It sounds ridiculous and meaningless. Do not mix these two up.
Such big changes....... What about an all teams generic car to test the technologies, a percentage of all teams budget and resources put into development of 2 or 3 test cars. We would be able to see how technologies work and don't work and how the cars interact with each other on the track.
Just drop the battery and hybrid system weight issue solved
That will be implemented for 2030 regulation (i hope).
@@metaliczic96same, as much as I support 2026, it would still be better
Unfortunately they would lose the engine manufacturers too
@@dogger37JC Yes. That is also the issue. Removing hybrid/battery system will make other PU/engine manufacturers like Honda & Audi lose their interest in F1.
@@metaliczic96Damn, i dont want back to factory reset (just Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault, and RBPT 🗿)
A much simpler change that would dramatically improve passing would be to reduce the maximum width of the car by 10 cm and accomplish this primarily by reducing tire width and requiring wing total width to be another 10 cm narrower than the tire track.
I expect this would also make the turns more dramatic with cars much closer to drifting. Tgis in turn would drive a harder tire compound, which would also make turns even more dramatic.
I'd love to see competitions likecthe old days, with two cars going into a turn side by side, bith drifting madly. This would be uncommon through most of a race because of the wear cost, but toward the end of a race when the win or a championship is on the line, two drivers desperate to beat the other would be going all out.
I think the majority of fans have stopped caring about the teams complaining about slower lap times and just want to see good and exciting races.
When the lights go out it's all that matters.
thats because the cars are fast now. if we go back to slow cars everybody will remember how bad 2014 sucked
False.
Mandate sizes back to the 90's era, get rid of the hybrid crap and allow any engine configuration you like as long as you achieve fuel consumption parity
Put a V10/V8 on sustainable fuel in a smaller car like that, fck that recovery thing, and let the active aero!
F6 Boxer engines or V4s would be interesting experiments.
I think that I agree with Nico Rosberg. The most effective way to give the car behind extra pace is not allow the team to manage its ride-height via active or partly-active suspension (giving the teams 2 settings to be set before parc fermé), so that the loss of downforce and shift in balance of the car behind can be partially negated. I don't think that we want to give the car behind a similar level of downforce simply by it being there.
But I am not too sure of myself here. Nor am I too sure of the FIA's current vision.
Ground-effect *definetly* helped improve the ability to follow. Maybe we need more of it and, in turn, reduce the wings even further, perhaps with a defined regulation box for each type of circuit as, for instance, reducing the regulation boxes for the wings, by itself, will not reduce wing sizes at Monza or Spa.
No batteries, just V10 ICE.
I would like LMDh type rules, it would allow more manufacturers to use other engines
@@tturi2like engines from Acura or Chevrolet?
@@tturi2those rules are possible because of BoP though. I doubt F1 would accept a rules like that
V10 F1 engines used 240kg of fuel.
2026 regs will use 80kg of fuel.
Quarter of a tonne.
You need to switch your brain on.
@procatprocat9647 yeah those batteries sure are light lmao
It would make sense for f1 to be the fastest series, but I really do think that entertainment and the ability to race should take priority. F1 has so many new fans due to Netflix. How long are they going to stick around with 1 or 2 good races per year?
Oh please, if F1 had just stuck with common sense they wouldn't need to use the american netflix brainwashing propaganda in the first place. If you put entertainment in the first place, you get america, a fucking circus, a fake scripted show, a bunch of bullshit.
Make the batteries smaller
Bigger fuel tanks to compensate?
@@procatprocat9647 Bigger V8 or V10 engines
@SilverScarletSpider so bigger fuel tanks?
V10s used 240kg of fuel.
2026 will use 80kg.
Do you want quarter of a tonne of petrol in the car at the start?
Is that your dream?
They could allow for regen braking BEFORE the active areo goes full downforce to get more energy into the batteries.. changing areo to high Z mode before braking will slow the car a lot before regen...
I am not optimistic about the quality of racing we’re about to see. I hope I’m wrong, but this feels like it will take a few years for any team to get right if they ever do.
Speed and aerodinamic downforce make overtaking harder.
If people want more close racing, we need slower cars in the corners by reducing downforce generated by the wings, thus slowing down cars.
“Too slow in the corners” sounds like another way of putting “more technical in the corners” ie rewards better, more precise driving and allows for some passing mid corner, kart-style. Is that not the case?
That comment also had me baffled. Present the constructors with a challenge, and they will overcome it. At Monaco, they're already dealing with the Lowes/Fairmont Hairpin.
No, that's not the case.
...the regs. are yet to be made public, they only showed us a concept car
I dont care if they are slower.
The way F1 is shot you don't see the speed of the cars anyway.
this is nothing new. i think my first gp was 89 in adelaide. unless you know someone in one of the surrounding buildings somewhere like adelaide or melbourne you go check out the atmosphere on friday/saturday but you stay home on sunday to watch the race. doesnt apply in a lot of places, the Australian Unity building across from Albert Park you can see the whole lot (got to watch from there a couple of times, and worked at the gp a couple of years), but i dont think theres anywhere in Monaco for instance you can do that, and certainly not on purpose built non city centre races. If youre actually working there and would have to be there sunday you *always* work night shifts. clock off 10am with a full all access pass and a 'im meant to be here' uniform is great fun.
Let them race tractors but just add anime style speed lines in post.
Let them race soap boxes then, you don’t care about speed anyway
I always thought they should have a few static cameras on the track walls. Like at the indy 500 with the flowers being blown around by the air of the cars going past over 200mph. It really shows the speed.
Top speed isn’t important, he’s right. But corner speed IS. They’ve got it completely backwards.
it would be cool if they made the cars even slimmer and more powerful so we could get the early 2000's type super nimble cars back because they look so much faster and more exciting, even though they are slower.
Bring back the V8's or V10's with sustainable biofuel, It would solve a lot of problems.
V8 would be way more realistic. Almost no manufacturers use V10s.
OEMs don’t use V10s anymore
Only Lambo/Audi and Lexus really use V10 in their cars it’s not feasible that manufacturers want V10
그게 해결책 인가요😅
The FIA are incapable of doing this.
@@LUMINOX. Could be buddy.... Could be.. Let's hope.
Really curious to see how the ruleset will perform once it's actually underway in 2026
Guess Ferrnando may finally get his GP2 engine.
I hope it’s not just ONE downforce setting for 2026. That would be very bad for tracks with varying downforce configuration requirements (like Monza, Monaco, Catalunya, Qatar, Hungaro-ring etc.).
More nimble is the same as agile. These rules don't allow active aero, it's just front and rear drs. Active aero allows the car to continuously adjust wing levels throughout the lap.
Active aero is just that, aero components that are active and not static. They don’t need to be run by a computer analyzing every corner improving lap times each lap.
@@patrickwhite4449 active suspension is a case in point, it adjusts to the unique demands of a corner. The 2026 system is just drs.
Any aero elements that purposefully change position while driving is active aero, it doesn’t matter who or what is controlling them 🙄
Every time they bring up the active aero, I have visions of a driver suffering a double wing failure at the bottom of Eau Rouge. I believe I can fly...
So the biggest problem, the cars being much too large, isn’t addressed?
Large and heavy. Both issues caused by the hybrid powertrain. But looks like this is the hill they want to die on.
They're shrinking the cars, it's a start. The heavy will come next, but F1 doesn't get fully sustainable fuel until 2026 so would have been a huge gamble to do the full switch back to ICE at once.
Marginally smaller car but much heavier PU.
Narrowing tires seems really dumb. 16” would make them
Lighter and easier to see over for drivers. It’s such an obvious choice.
I’d rather see active suspension to an active aero. It’s going to cause a lot of instability in transit from straight to corner. Dive bombs will be super dicey. More crashes. Much slower corner speeds is NOT F1. It’s supposed to be the sport’s signature feature. These new cars will be like IndyCars. Yuck. Maybe slightly better on street tracks but awful on the proper race tracks.
Maybe that’s the plan? Turn the whole series into street racing.
You can't really have a heavy and small F1 car.
I wish that one day rules will be simpler, as just a box inside wich the car should fit to limit the overall size, minimum weight and safety specs within a limited budget, maybe a drag wake control so the cars do not to become unfollowable but otherwise no rules...it would be way more interesting to see.
Wec seems more together than F1
What happened to the cost cap? Changing rules in such a dramatic way is one thing, but they saying they can be adjusted and relaxed is going to result in costly redesign and testing.
The weight issue can be solved by removing the batteries and replacing the V6 Turbo engine with a V10
The batteries that weigh 25 kg? Wow, I'm sure we'll see a massive difference!
@@drunkenhobo8020 It's a long way toward that 30 kg Alonso seems to think is impossible, so yes.
This is the third or fourth video I have watched on the subject, and as a 2-3 year fan I still have no idea what any if this means, what effect any of it may have, or WHY they are doing it or WHAT they are hoping to accomplish, so the FIA is failing miserably at communicating to new fans.
Teams vetoed front axle electric motor and now bitch and whine that the car would be too slow. Fine, add the front motor then. Will also recuperate more energy.
Thanks for these explanations 👍
They should delay the new regulations. And why reduce the grip from the floor
Delay delay delay again, Big no
Reduces grip= more skill, more racing, mire tricky
@@Hungary_0987also cuts the impact of the diffuser. Allows the cars to be run less stiffly and makes rain spray have less of an impact
@@Hungary_0987 Reduces grip = slower than a fucking road car.
So in the rain, DRS is turned off. Does that mean from 2026 onwards if the track is wet the mode changes will be disabled? That would make the cars way to slow over the full lap, limit recharge and overtaking 🤔
Who cares if it’s slower if we get good racing! You can’t really tell the difference on tv between 220mph and 180mph and the differences will like be way less drastic anyway like the last few times they’ve claimed the cars will be much slower! I just want good races!!!
The good racing requires high downforce and corner speeds to make those epic overtakes we love. Top speed doesn’t matter. Downforce does. And these regs get that part way wrong. Racing will suffer.
lots of downforce means cars can't follow each other closely, I'd trust the actual experts at FIA to make the racing exciting@@f.kieranfinney457
Why aren't you watching running or cycling then? If the speed, sound, looks etc. don't matter go and watch any other kind of racing. I care about the racing and even with lower speeds, these regs will ruin it. No drag is the death of slipstreams. No DRS means overtakes will become rare beyond imagination. And a energy button which will double your bhp means defending will become easier than ever since you only use it in overtaking spots. Go and enjoy watching net zero processions from 2026 onwards, I'm out after 2025.
Why are you watching F1 then if you're such a fan of closer racing? Go watch a stock series.
Definitely liking the competition from the WEC boys over the the f1 group .... a lot could be learnt a lot here.. manufacturers are turning up here different design philosophies and the racing is action packed too.. its more how F1 should be imo
I don’t even care about that set of regs- I care about the small comments made that with green fuel we could go back to V8s and no more hybrid engines
to fix racing dey ditch hybrid like WRC Did it not make any difference environmentaly in comparison with whole transport F1 use to move teams around the globe. Also this will reduce weight, overheating the brakes and car can be smaller
Literally everyone: we want smaller, lighter more agile cars with freer engine regulations using sustainable fuel allowing for better sounding engines.
The FIA: the best I can do is large heavy cars keeping the same engine but with reduced power for a 50/50 hybrid energy split. Oh and the cars can't use their full power for 70% of the race.
fans are not engineers kid
Ok: easy fix: keep chassis rules. Strike the Active Aero. Give the cars the same fuel flow again, allow any 1600cc 6 cylinder forced induction engine. So any bank angle, any Turbo configuration, any bore, any stroke. Give the ERS 100kW in normal mode and 200kW in a Push to Pass mode. Done.
To make cars more consistant: allow active suspension, but only on the third spring. This allows AoA and rideheight control.
It feels like they need 5 more years to be ready, not 2. Rn it seems that everything is in complete shambles
And the field has finally tightened too with the wind tunnel restrictions doing their job. This and next season look to be extremely competitive.
Why change ‘26 and then again in ‘30?
Make the chassis changes in ‘26 and then PU in ‘30.
By then the global car market will have stabilized and we’ll know where the tech is headed so manufacturers can capitalize on their F1 research. It would help bring in GM and allow Audi more time too. Maybe even Toyota would consider, if renewable fuels are a bigger part.
EV sales are slowing. Every country seems to be back peddling on full electric. Let’s wait!
@@f.kieranfinney457 yes honestly i dont get why they want to rush things this much. Current regs are only 3 years old… and honestly, i dont remember any team being so worried about 2022 regs back in 2020…
@@f.kieranfinney457 + X-mode and Z-mode wtf are those names 💀
KERS era provided some great racing. A shame they abandoned it completely.
Dropping the MGU-H is a joke. They're well developed and reliable, and fundamentally are a pinnacle of efficiency and using less fuel which i thought was the whole point. Just freeze them and keep using them with more battery power.
Yes I liked the concept too. Complicated, sure, but a great way of maximizing ICE efficiency
Super expensive to develop and make though. Which keeps out new manufacturers.
Kinda heavy though not as bad as giant batteries!
S or L mode (straight, or low drag mode), C or H mode (Corner or High downforce) would be easier to remember which one is which.
I’m reminded how when Grand Prix cars changed from 2.5l to 1.5l for 1962 everyone said it would be a disaster and slow however the 1.5l era led to some glorious racing…
If your point with this comment is that hysteria over new rules rarely leads anywhere, then fair enough I guess.
That said, we're at a point now where the teams have to politick their way to a less restrictive set of rules, versus 1962 where the rulebook was barely any thicker than a laptop. Far more significant evolution was possible then v. now, so I don't think we can rely on the engineers to breakdance around the rules the way they used to (at least, not as much). I might be wrong though.
That, and something else: the 1.5L cars are largely overshadowed by the 3.0L cars that directly succeeded them for a reason.
On the contary, I remember in 68.4Ma when they banned the T-Rex for being too large, and the pterodactyls ended up dominating by just flying over everyone else.
@@mitchell-wallisforce7859 You are absolutely correct in your interpretation of my view on such “hysteria”. You also right about how the 3l formula and how it led to what in my view was probably the greatest era in F1…
It’s also worth noting the rules are immature and negotiations will almost certainly result in changes being made.
The science and math just doesn't add up on this. If you make your cars very low drag slipstreaming will cease to exist. Simultaneously removing DRS will make the overtaking problem even worse. And 50% of your PU output being from electric energy for harvesting capabilities are way too low in the new regs to be able to use consistently in a race, means defending drivers will have an easy time defending with double the power by only using it in overtaking zones whilst attacking drivers need to use it to keep up with them through the dirty air. The change you mention only made the cars a bit slower, something easily offset by the big developments of aero in that time. Those developments are way smaller now with more restrictive rules meaning its hard to make cars a lot faster in a short amount of time. It also opens up the door for one team getting it very right and dominating like Merc did in 2014 who had no competition for 3 seasons straight.
I thought I saw a video about drivers complaining they will go too fast down the straights and will misjudge the corners, as long as the drivers have the pre-2022 grip again, sounds great to me. A driver should now how much speed he needs to take to judge his braking points.
1:33 grand prix drivers association director??????
He has been for years. It shouldn't be a surprise by now
He gets away with more shenanigans than any other driver. Now you know why.
@@f.kieranfinney457 No he doesn't 🤣
Easiest solution is to reduce the electrical engine size and increasing the ICE size. Will provide more power and reduce the weight. Done.
Green tech should have never entered F1, its such a nieche and specific sport it should have a free hand in my view. In the same vein we haven't stopped racing horses just because cars exist, F1 should be allowed to just use whatever they want to make 1. Racing exciting and 2. Enable drivers at every point to show off their skills, not pander to green lobby. There are 20 of these cars racing every week or 2 weeks, how much difference do they think becoming green will make to the environment :P
I agree completely. It’s all greenwashing. And nobody mentions how much they travel all over the world during a season. Maybe make their cargo planes run off biofuel?
F1 is a test bed for car tech. Efficiency is vital for all cars and therefore for F1.
@@Mtbbodhi they will get to synthetic fuels for planes. That would help even more than using it in cars. Short flight planes can be electric too. The cargo ships the move team gear around the world could definitely benefit from alt fuels like hydrogen converting to electricity to drive E-motors.
Diesel electric trains have been a thing for decades and could swap to hydrogen. It’s possible to make diesel electric transport trucks (being done in BC right now) which means synthetic fuel or hydrogen ICE to electric trucks are possible. All good targets.
But it’s the F1 cars that get all the eyeballs. If you want to show new tech, improve efficiency (everyone agrees efficiency is good), then you put the tech in the F1 cars.
I wouldn't have watched F1 it it was similar to horse racing. That's an old sport that might be exciting to some, but not very inspirational or modern.
The use of cutting edge technology in F1 is what makes it interesting. I personally love the added complexity in strategy and all the metrics you get to see.
@@f.kieranfinney457 I agree but I think F1 is also and I would argue primarly racing, I think they should have go all in on synthetic fuel, we know it works so as cutting edge sport not invest in something that will change everything.
Monza T1 gonna be hilarious. Going from zero verticle load to all of it at the hit of a button gon be fun to watch
active aero has a major problem. less slipstreaming in the straights and more dirty air in the corners.
But it doesnt create dirty air, otherwise it wohldnt exist
@@Hungary_0987 The teams will find a way to outwash as much air as possible, that's why the rules change every so often, so that the teams can just keep perfecting and bending over and over.
@@Hungary_0987 bruhh no race car creates no dirty air...
@@Hungary_0987 wrong assumption
@@Hungary_0987 with active aero you run the monaco aero package for the corners and the monza package for the staights.
I do like the idea of this active aero but I think the teams should have more control over it like the active suspension from the 90s Instead of it just being on and off like the DRS. teams should have the ability to set up the active aero however they want: that would give teams more flexibility to put less drag on the straights and more downforce in the slow stuff or give the option to flip it. Giving teams a new avenue in terms of strategy or ways to suit their cars or drivers. And also have the move from x to z-mode on the straights more progressive related to speed instead of just flipping between the two. Hopefully that all makes sense 😂
actually we should be asking: what IS the pinnacle of motorsport? will 2026 affect this debate in f1's favor?
lmao hi nando
@@zatti9153 damn ive been found lmao
Cars getting increasingly more complex, expensive(?) and difficult to master for drivers
Every regulations change - it’s like entering a different racing series for drivers. By the time drivers get truly adjusted, feel these new cars and are capable of fine/intuitive control required for great racing - regs are changed again and we’re back to square one,
drivers having to fight new cars instead of each other