Is Formula 1 About To Get Really Slow?
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 08. 2024
- The truth about the 2026 Formula 1 rule changes!
Why 2026 F1 Engines Make Less Power - • Why Are 2026 Formula 1...
Subscribe to Engineering Explained for more videos! - goo.gl/VZstk7
Formula 1 teams are concerned that the cars are going to be too slow in 2026; this is because an all new ruleset goes into effect which has major changes. The cars will have less combustion power, and more power will come from the electric motor. This shift will create energy challenges, so the cars will have less aerodynamic drag and less downforce - that does save energy, but it also means slower cornering speeds. But, not to fear, the new cars have more horsepower, not less, so they'll definitely be quicker, right? Well, we'll have to do a little math to find out. Enjoy!
References:
2026 FIA Regulations - www.fia.com/regulation/catego...
70kg Fuel Target - www.formula1.com/en/latest/ar...
F1 Downforce Numbers - • McLaren Substitute Tea...
Engineering Explained is a participant in the Amazon Influencer Program.
Recommended Books & Car Products - amzn.to/2BrekJm
EE Shirts! - bit.ly/2BHsiuo
Don't forget to check out my other pages below!
Instagram: / engineeringexplained
Facebook: / engineeringexplained
Twitter: / jasonfenske13
EE Extra: / @engineeringexplainede... - Auta a dopravní prostředky
A lot of math in this video, that's my bad.
At this point math is more fun than watching F1…..
The math is more exciting than the F1 these days. Should be unlimited boost, unlimited RPM. Get rid of the electric crap.
What's wrong with math?
No, math is good! It's the language we use for describing, defining and predicting physics. It's important and interesting and helpful even (especially?) when it's almost like you planned it out.
Don't listen to the haters. This is great.
Can't wait to come back in 2026 for Jason to reference this video when f1 is 7s slower
Don't tempt me! 😂
I have no doubt Super Formula will be faster. The performence cut is worse than 2014 and back then SF would qualify mid grid
@@Willbrse"no doubt" lol
@@Willbrse i wish there was a bookmark feature on youtube for comments like these lmaoo "no doubt"
If the racing is good, does it really matter? Do people complain that the F1 cars were 5 seconds slower 20 years ago?
"So let's try to solve it with some Expo markers and a whiteboard."
Yes! That's why I'm here.
Exactly! The degree of precision of this "much better than guesswork" method is impressive.🙂
That's why i watch this channel😂
And math. Don't forget the MATH!
I now have a headache. You people have issues. 😂✌️😵💫🇺🇸. NASCAR is a more relaxed sport. 🍺🍕🇺🇸
Everytime F1 significantly changes the rules it makes F1 less competitive. The smaller teams don't have the money and resources to redevelop as quickly as Bull, Merc, and Ferrari. So we are looking at another crap season in F1 where one or 2 teams win everything and the other teams just crash out of every race. The whole sport needs to either change completely or just go away.
Something in me dislikes whenever rules are put down, that limit efficiency... like the aero efficiency limit in LM, removal of MGU-H, and even a cap on recovered energy per lap
they dont get near the energy recovery per lap figure at the moment anyway.
The MGU-H is a highly complicated and thus, very expensive piece of kit. Audi / Porsche / VW did not want to get involved in F1 if the MGU-H remained. All the f1 teams (I believe) are quite happy to be losing this complicated costly part
Every race league has rules. The ones that don’t last a few years and then get banned/canceled.
I agree it's mostly for cost but also partly to "improve the sound" of the cars. In the current regs, a lot of the "racecar sound" is attenuated by the energy recovery because those sound pulses are essentially wasted energy. Plus without the MGU-H, we'll get awesome blowoff sounds!
@@phonebem its 30% less energy in the exhaust. it will make the cars even quieter and lower reving
15:55 this is exactly the problem Verstappen & Horner raised and were told by the FIA they were exaggerating
I don't know how it was in the past with rulemaking but now it is a game of keeping the
big players happy. MGU-K? Higher efficiency but No, to complicated. 4WD? No, Audi will have an advantage due to LMP1. 11th team? No, they will take our market share. You just have to hate politics in sport. So many compromises.
I think it's the MGU-H they are getting rid of. Which is weird since VW just came out with one for the new 911.
But yeah agreed, It's getting to the point where a Porsche road car will have more tech on it than an F1 car, their new Active suspension is pretty awesome too.
Having active aero but no active suspension is also a big miss.
So silly to not have had energy recovery and deployment on the front axle.
@@tHebUm18the other big teams are worried that Audi will come in and dominate the field with the experience they had with their lmp1 cars. Which absolutely destroyed the WEC for better than half a decade. Ferrari, Mercedes, Red Bull and McLaren cannot be embarrassed by a new team. Instead of trying to keep up with the technology, they’d rather the technology no exist to compete with
the sport is becoming over-regulated. the rulebook just keeps growing as it slowly turns into a spec series
Beyond safety requirements, fuel tank size, and other obvious basics, F1 should really be a free for all as far as engineering goes.
Might as well throw safety out the window completely at that point. There's no surviving crashing 800km/h rockets anyway
But dying isnt very safe, at least in my opinion @oyuyuy
They did that for a while, but at that time, it was the most dangerous sport in the world. Either watch the old races or build your own death cart lmao
@@Neridian_ Just don't die?
F1 became a bunch of gimmicks strapped together instead of the ultimate expression of a racecar
But when the cars is to fast: Races are boring!😂
I’d recommend you look back at the 6 wheeled cars, ones with double wings, the tusks, etc. F1 rules changing force teams to innovate which is the primary part of the sport. All the money is in constructors, drivers is the glory.
F1 has always been about hundreds of the world’s best engineers pushing the limits on R&D.
Stick with endurance racing and hypercars
Agreed, I've been watching since 89. The paddle shifter was the first gimmick that helped start to throw the sport off course but it really lost its way when all the electronics, computers, passing and driver aids came into play. These days race cars resemble less of an actual car and more of a rolling computer with an engine.
The thing is if they allow unlimited development for the ultimate expression of a racecar, we'd end up with weird stuff like the Red bull prototypes in Gran Turismo. Those racing is a sight to behold, not in a good way.
One thing I noticed is that whenever they talk about speed they mean in qualifying trim. I always thought that the total time over race distance (305km) or fastest lap of the race is a better indicator of an F1 car's "speed". That's why the 2004 cars held records for so long and still do. That's without DRS or slick tyres.
Fuel load is another huge one since refueling has been disallowed
You do know that thouse cars could push with an empty fule, needing to drive qualy times. While modern cars just cruse around to save the tires and only rarely push in the race when they under pressure, and even than they have a full fule. Only in qatar they where pushing qualy times every lap because they needed to pit anyways because of the fia and there the drivers nearly passed out.
without DRS and slick tyres yes but with more than 200kg less weight and no where near as much fuel onboard. you're comparing apples to oranges
@@SHRModding apples to oranges is the whole topic of this video
@@BHRxRACER is it? Anyhow my point was that the weight advantage alone gives the 2004 cars way more laptime than DRS and slicks could ever overcome
In comparison, the Porsche 919 LMP1h, could recover 8MJ per lap, and had similar ICE and electrical power to the upcoming 2026 cars. Even tho the Porsche had the same "average" energy as the 2MJ recovery and 4MJ cars (those cars were allowed more fuel per lap, given they had less recovered energy), Porsche were able to choose where to deploying it. And mathematically it was much faster to explode all of that energy at the beginning of every straight so that the car would go from 120kph to 260kph in like 3 seconds, and then the car will rely on the ICE only. The electric boost was also handy at creating huge speed differences on the straights depending on deployment to help overtake. However, later, the electric deployment was pulled back a bit to 400hp, and the cars would race more evenly.
Hope we don’t get massive speed differences that lead to most overtakes but rather fighting in braking and corners
I guess during the ICE only phase gear choice is important?
@@thurbine2411in theory even if you use your deployment to pass, they can use to defend… or wait till later in the lap to get you back. Track position becomes less important but overall pace and tire grip is more important.
LMP1H from 2012 to 2016 is peak motorsport. I wish F1 would use those regs for engine minus diesel
I think F1 should limit the hybrid power to 240~260 max so they have energy after every corner. After that only the override function works. And also keep downforce levels similar to what they have now so the movable front wing wont be necessary and the cars won't be much slower. And maybe they could carry less batteries that way.
But the whole idea abt going till 345kph with the hybrid seems like a wet dream. There isn't enough energy for that.
@@Willbrse I wouldn’t say that slower cars than today especially at start of very new regs would be that bad. I agree that it would be better to not have to have active aero. Think one of the most important things would be to have the cars smaller so you can take more different lines as well as giving more room for different setups and developments of the cars
In the end, Christian H...y was not wrong saying that the drivers would lift off in the end of the straight lines to recover energy.
I’m even more pessimistic. He hasn’t included a critical issue. With 30% less downforce, corner exit speed will be a lot slower, making his straitaway analysis overly optimistic.
Corner entry speed will also be a lot slower, so it's not that optimistic
I mean the medium-slow corner exit speed wont be that big of a concern, theyll be a bit lighter, with a tiny bit skinnier tyres but the torque of the electric engine will really help launch it out. In slow corners downforce isnt much
And also we dont know how that 30% adds up maybe they calculated it 50/50% from z and x mode, could be that in normal mode it will only lose 10-15percent
11:33...
nope as he also asumed 350kph in a perfect circel which is such a massive mistake that I can't believe that noone pointed that out yet
The most exciting eras of F1, CanAm, Group B etc has been when teams have found new innovations or loop holes in the rule book. The sport is inching further and further away from that and for teams to have an ability to create unique and innovative cars.
I wish they opened up the rules for innovation and creativity and set a handful of very limiting parameters that the teams had to work with. Like a very constricted fuel supply but any engine configuration they decide on. Active aero but a very limited body work area, a 3D-scanner could easily check the area number. Not regulate tire sizes and let more tire suppliers in to the sport.
And Id love to hear what people actually working in F1 thinks. Or someone who used to work there and has nothing to loose by speaking freely.
Yeah I don't get this.
At first I was like cool. They have more energy for their batteries. Motors are amazing, and they should. The teams will find the best ways to get more from the motors now.
Then they start putting limits on everything about the system while using less powerful fuel...
The sport seems to be losing its identity. It needs less rules. More unique designs. Cap the money somehow if that means only richer teams will win.
Or at least a bit more room for different designs. Engines would probably be the same for most cars even if the choice was free but it just feels like the current regs don’t allow for much difference in setup or aero. All cars have to run super low to be fast and rules are very strict in how things should look
@@dianapennepacker6854 I agree that the poorer teams should get a shot at scoring points. But looking at the history of the sport, when theyve been trying to restrict spending in certain areas. The teams with bigger funds can throw more money on other areas of development rendering those caps counterproductive.
Brawn won a championship cause they found an innovative loophole and they pursued it cause they were desperately underfunded and hungry to survive.
Looser regulations leaves more room for idea based innovation and great ideas are usually cheaper than incremental R&D. And if you ask me. Innovation was what F1 used to be about and what Id like to see more of.
@@dianapennepacker6854cap the money somehow lol you've been following closely haven't you
@@bodanerius you'd then need BOP to ensure close racing. never forget that open regs always create large gaps between cars / teams. if you want closer racing, regulating strict limits on everything is one way to do it along with a budget cap. At the moment F1 has the tightest bunched field in its history. how that isn't exciting for anyone is beyond me. tbh i'm not looking forward to the '26 changes purely because one team probably gonna dominate
that top speed isn't hit at very many tracks, monza, mexico, baku is where they can hit 360 - 370. most of the time they are at 340 or less at their fastest point.
Yep, but if the cars had way less drag they'd be able to reach higher speeds quicker!
They will still have higher speeds on the straights or more downforce while still having same top speed
When did anyone go over 350 at Baku?
@@andrewlutes2048 Good question, got me looking. Mostly about 340 kmh expected through traps in Baku. But for science in 2016 Bottas reached 378 kph on straight and 366.1 through the the traps
Aren’t the cars geared differently for different tracks?
A couple of thoughts on this Jason.
The current rules allow for a maximum recovery of 2MJ per lap from the MGUK to the battery and 4MJ per lap deployment from the battery to the MGUK.
But the energy transferred between the MGUH and the battery and between the MGUH and MGUK is unlimited.
At most tracks the cars cannot recover the full 2MJ per lap under braking alone. They have to burn fuel at part throttle to boost the recovery.
For 2026 the energy recovered per lap is 8.5MJ but the deployment is unlimited.
Meaning that the recovered energy by the MGUK to the battery is over 4 times the amount in the current rules.
The 2026 rules have specific rules about recovering energy when the driver is on throttle.
At part throttle there is a rule that limits fuel flow (article 5.4.5) to, presumably, limit energy recovery.
This means that the ICE will be making more power in some corners than would normally be the case.
For example, the hairpin at Monaco, where the engines barely make power, the 2026 ICE could make as much as 120kW, which would be used for energy recovery.
In article 5.14.8 the rate at which the PU output when at maximum power demand (ie full throttle) is reduced is defined. It also specifies that the maximu reduction is 450kW and that the MGUK must stay above -100kW (ie no more than 100kW of recovery).
It is likely, IMO, that the cars will reach the end of a long straight with only 300kW, not 400kW, if only for a second or two.
Most tracks have 10-15s of heavy braking, which would give the 2026 car roughly 1/2 the allowable energy recovery. The rest will have to be from fuel burning, so the minimum fuel is probably going to be ~90kg, maybe more.
Using the power numbers in your video, and by the rule 5.4.8, the 2026 cars will have more power than the 2024 cars up to 304kph.
Basically, IMO, the 2026 PUs are too heavy for their power (they are much the same weight as the current PU), and the style of ERS is more suitable for stop-start commuter traffic than high speed race cars.
I wonder what the lap times would be without the ERS and the maybe extra 100kg of weight it causes.
No that's not right, the MGU-H does not recover energy at part throttle. It does it at wide open throttle.
They get just under 200 bhp from the MGU-H, and there's no way you'd get that from part throttle.
MGU-H is gone in ‘26
the maximum start fuel will be 70kg by rules. fuel flow rate i dont know. but the start fuel load is down 30%
its quite a clever strategy. finally got me to understand what max was saying a year or so ago about cars breaking on the straights.
MGU-H isn't burning fuel at part throttle, so you are fundamentally wrong.
idk why that rule about limiting the cars' energy recovery rate is even there? if there's all that power in braking being left on the table, especially as the ICE becomes less powerful and the PU relies more on the electric motor, why the hell can't they take full advantage of that energy regen?
the recovery limmit is irelevent. they cant do the 4mj currently permited.
ICE motor will be used to recover said energy
@@1CoLoRz2that’s being banned for 2026. Only under braking can you recover energy.
What you describe in the last part is what everyone is concerned. They are going to lift early to regen, lap times are going to be slower.
laptimes slower but more overtaking opportunities
@@pierrepressure8575 todays regulations in theory had the same goal.
@@SE3552And it worked
@@SE3552 second time's the charm!
Cool. You lift and coast and you get overtaken.
The question is were the lap times slower or faster than 2020 or 2004 or 1994 at Silverstone last weekend? Does anyone know or care?
"So expect Ferrari to absolutely nail the strategy."
Perfection. 👌
They are also going to have narrower tires in the new regs, which is where some of the reduced drag comes from, but it will also make corner’s slower due to loss in mechanical grip
yeah I don't think we need math to understand less rubber reduces grip far more then the aerodynamic benefit... but I'd be curious if that could be calculated.
@@flip_moto I wouldn't be so sure. Williams claimed the narrower tyres in 1993 made their car faster overall. That was a much more significant reduction in tyre width than for 2026 too.
@@flip_moto the width of the tyre is a highly unusual concept as its heat management rather than contact patch. coeficent of friction is identical so for an identical compound narrower tyres would be faster due to less weight and less drag. however the tyres have the say 100kw of energy across 40cm v 30cm. energy will be heat. so the skinny tyres will blister, that causes a harder compound to be needed. and the harder compound is what looses time.
the same concept can be used on snow. there are 2 options. so much surface area that you grip anyway, or studded tyres that focus really high pressure meaning you have grip.
@@somethingfunny6867 Your thinking of classroom physics. In the real world the drag coefficient goes up with wider tyres since the road isnt perfectly flat and the tyre isnt either. They have bumps/ridges that can interlock with each other. Wider tyres means there are more bumps/ridges the tyres can latch on to.
@@Polla9203 no thats not how it works at all. the softer compounds used can go deeper into the micro bumps and ridges. and that is what gives more grip.
I've watched the WEC at the peak of LMP1, where the max. amount of energy allowed per lap was really restrictive. It's not going to be that much of "they look sooooo much slower", but rather "we can see how much faster they *could* go".
Sometimes I wonder if FIA just pulls these numbers out of thin air
Oh no, their engineers do heavy ammounts of guessearch. The only numbers they really care about are financial related.
Why would they make f1 teams go slow intentionally to charge a battery? I think hybrids are great but that just sucks. The whole point of f1 is that these are the fastest cars in the world.
If they want small fast light and efficient, why not: turbo v8 with a little electric power from breaking and exhaust used to give boost to the engine? And then use renewable fuel.
Completely out of their asses!
100%
@@gustavofigueiredo1798 Yeah, I have a feeling that is why we have fewer and fewer real, actual, racetracks on the calander.
"It's almost like I planned this out."
Isn't math great?
They need to make the cars smaller. Every major regulation change has made them bigger, and has made overtaking harder
One remark: In order to regenerate 8.5 MJ the electric motor needs tobrake for around 20 seconds. Problem is that F1 doesn't brake for 20s during a lap and therefore will have less than 8.5MJ available. One option is to let the engine produce more power when it is not required, halfway a corner for instance, and regenerate at that point. This will require more fuel then.
There is a method which would sound really strange... revving the engines mid corner to charge the baterry its possible
@@zoli8569 That's not efficient
@@TheFPSPower It's what will happen though. You are allowed up to 30% torque from the engine to charge the battery while the driver has zero throttle on. The 70kg fuel limit is very unlikely to happen, most likely it will be 100kg again and used to generate electricity.
The current cars can't regenerate their allowed 4 MJ per lap either. They can use that 4 MJ from the battery when they need to, and then need to recover it, usually over multiple laps. So they don't have 4MJ of electric power available each lap either.
My guess is that on most tracks, these cars might be able to barely recover 4.5 MJ, and use the rest 4 MJ from the battery, for 8.5 MJ total usage on a push lap. because I don't see why there would be a 8.5 MJ per lap battery usage limit if they could never reach that anyway because the storage delta is only 4 MJ and they can't recover enough for the rest of the per-lap limit.
If all that is true, then they can almost recover the battery to full in a single recovery lap after doing that push lap, which IMO could be a good thing. Or keep using the battery power in a balanced manner where they recover as much as they use.
you have found the reason why the new rules are being binned by 2030. i suspect they wont ever get implemented.
Formula 1 as gone back to Bernie Ecclestone mindset and politics. The current F1 cars that are the best at following each other through corners for more than 15 years was the vision from Chase Carey , Sean Bratches and Ross Brawn. F1 needed Ross Brawn because he was afraid of the team principals nor was he was trying to curry favor to secure his career. The trio was the best leadership team for Formula 1. You wouldnt have Netflix, freedom of social media, cameras going inside the garages, tech time to talk about the sticky uppy bits, we wouldnt have none of that. Sadly F1 greatest weakness is politics where persons are put in power based on the benefits of outside stakeholders and not on their ability to lead sport to become greater.
F1's greatest weakness is the freaking FIA
These wide giant cars are not the best for racing. Yes, they can follow better than the 2017-21 cars, but they didn't change enough. They needed to be closer to the size of the 2012-16 cars. They needed a higher rear wing which would have provided more visibility for the drivers while reducing the turbulence at the rear, and a slightly smaller front wing not the huge plow they put on. The 18inch tires require more energy to spin up and slow down. Ross Brawn and Pat Fry gave us an extension of the 2017 rules. They are better, but not good enough for wheel to wheel racing. Hopefully the smaller cars even with their power limitations will provide better wheel to wheel racing.
I like em sticky uppy, pointy outy bits
@@uncleelias Ross Brawn said it himself that these car were a step in the right direction not the perfect solution. He said before he left they were improvements to be made. The 2026 regs should have been a evolution but not another revolution such as 2014 and 2017
Such is life. Politics ruins everything
Great job Jason. Your closing is perfect "engineers will engineer"
I liked his Ferrari strategy comment too! 😂
This video definitely represented what I like best about your channel. It even included an awesome whiteboard presentation! Looking forward to the next one!
Awesome and very illustrative video. I was wondering about those factors too and you cleared them all out brilliantly
I don't care about slow, I care about the cars being driven at their limit 100% of the time and having real battles for positions without relying on gimmickry.
True. 800hp vs 1000 hp. You can't tell the difference. The real change is the acceleration vs deceleration, vs conering.
Less mechanical grip means more reliance on aero
@@limbeboy7They'll probably rely more on mechanical grip in 2026 due to the reduced ground effect.
So much yesssssssss. Drivers afraid of exploting gaps because of tire management and flapping wings giving free overtakes for just driving behind someone killed f1 for me a long time ago.
It seems like nowdays it has just become a resource management simulator.
Then get rid of the car then...
Yep, they said 2021 cars are gonna be sh*t with the pole lap time slower than the Q1 time in 2020. I don't see those people, or really anyone complaining these days about 2021 season being boring because cars are slower.
Great explanation (as always)! It will be very interesting to see how the new rules work out on the track and how quickly the teams adapt.
3:13 Actually they always start the race with full battery. They charge it before the race doing a few laps on the track.
Ha, okay, but 4MJ out of 4,000MJ is pretty negligible. :)
From the moment they started talking about removing the MGU-H I kept trying to tell people that physics won't allow the cars to be faster. If you make the cars less massive, they recover less energy. If you make the regenerative motors (MGU-K) bigger, you spend more energy accelerating. This upcoming new PU was proposed as a unicorn. Additionally, this new fuel is also a unicorn in terms of efficiency in manufacturing it. This is what happens when the oil barons are running the FIA. The new PUs will also not save money as I expect them to be less reliable.
I don't think oil barons would be too happy about switching to synthetic fuels
@@jonathansmith7306 Where do you think synthetic fuels come from? Just because they are in theory "renewable", doesn't mean that oil isn't used in the production process. Think about all the equipment involved, trucks, tractors, plastics, everything runs on oil, no one is worried that oil is somehow going to become irrelevant. That's also why oil companies are one of the largest investors in renewables, they know that producing all the wind turbines (out of plastic), installing them (using fuel) and then having to cover the downtime (gas turbines) doesn't reduce oil consumption or price AT ALL. It might eventually reduce it in decades, but at that point they will have invested everything into renewables, it's pure politics.
A little less reliability might be exciting to watch. These cars don't break down at the rate they used to.
you forgot to factor in the active aero in your equation
Oil Barron's? Where's your source for this accusation?
I'm a little bit dissapointed by the new rules. I hoped they would unleash the engineers at energy recovery and reuse. Like give them 240-360kW MGU-K, keep the MGU-H, and let them recover and deploy as they like. But this would probably favor the best engineering team too much.
The shorter wheelbase will even further decrease the cornering speed, as with a shorter leaver you reach the maximum force the contact patch can support sooner. Tire strategy will also be interesting. As we take load of in terms of weight and downforce i expect only one stop at any dry race.
Wouldn't be great if the FIA just gave dimension, weight and tire restrictions and allowed teams to develop energy production in any means possible? Its near spec racing at this point.
@@flip_moto It depends on who you ask. When they started the hybrids it was slightly loose in terms of the MGU-H and HV battery as it was uncertain at the time how much the battery would suffer from the environment in the car. That alone gave Mercedes a huge advantage in the early years of their dominance.
Awesome for engineers, racing fans hated it, and the sponsors of other teams didn't like it either.
The current regulations make LMP1 engines viable and favor Audi, Ford, Porsche, and Toyota to enter F1. Audi is confirmed, Porsche couldn't agree with Red Bull so Ford will enter, and Toyota asked for sure but we don't know as they keep their business clean as usual.
the rules are not the limmit. they cant recover 4mj at the moment so have no chance of recovering 8. if they want a hope they need front wheel motors.
@@somethingfunny6867 you don't necessarily need to get to the front. They break at slightly under 2000kW only 120kW of it can be recovered. Without whiteboarding, I guess the rear axle can handle up to 500kW under braking. So they could 4x their recovery if they want to. With the front, they need a system that can handle about 4 MJ per hard braking point.
@@MrHaggyy whilst you are correct at 200mph by the time you are at 150mph the initial energy flow halfs, and grip halfs. by 7150mph you are limited by car energy and grip. 200mph down to 70 is about 0.5Mj around a lap you might get 4 of these. and recover no more than 2Mj/lap. with the new rules you might get another half a Mj/lap
From Montreal Canada! Jason, you must have been a great student! Great channel. Keep it up!
Juan Pablo Montoya said in an interview. "If we had the tires of the current F1 cars, we would rip out our heads off". It was just pure power limited by mechanical grip
Honestly why do they make so many restrictions?
Why not just limit the battery weight and fuel tank size and let the cars race? Why this nonsense with "above 345 there is 0 electric power". Nobody wants this!
Their thought is "if we make the rules simple, the best engineering team will win every race." They don't want a Max Verstappen show again.
I agree with you, but that's THEIR reasoning. "Close racing."
because if they didn't the drivers would pass out in the corners and kill spectators. thats why. engineers are to smart. also a massive shakeup in the rules gives teams with lower budgets a chance since its a blank slate and a chance at innovation. every time there is a massive rule change there is a shakeup on the grid. and tbh thats a good thing.
@@jstefa2 Why do you think the driver would pass out in the corner. They don't now.
Formula 1 should be about the cutting edge technology. Not about lifting and coasting to the next corner to save energy in my opinion
@@BukkitViper I think he meant that if there were no restrictions, engineers would build cars that would do 10gs during braking or whatever, causing the drivers to pass out - ie hyperbole about no restrictions.
Agreed on the 2nd part, but sadly too often the new rules come just as everything is getting close again.
@@rileyh4169nah, they started in 2022 because they didn't want the Lewis Hamilton show for the next 7 years. Unfortunately their plan didn't work and it became the Max Verstappen show for a few years.
I've done endurance racing, designed race cars, and know a few Formula 1 engineers and I'm excited for the new rules. More power, but less energy makes strategy more important and puts even more of that strategy workload on the driver. I think these rules will allow for much more passing. Use a little too much energy down one straight trying to defend and then you're a sitting duck down the next straight. Or if you use all your energy to get a pass done then you have none left to defend that position.
And when we look at dynamics of racing, once you get closer to the guy in front, they can't afford to coast, while the guy behind almost has to until we are going to attempt an overtake. Then it is equal game. Lots and lots of switchbacks to be expected...
Yeah, it's a lot like racing in the rain. People love when it rains because it forces drivers and teams to make decisions on the fly. These rules do the same thing.
So now in addition to managing tires drivers are executing an energy management strategy not thought out by themselves but computer simulations that tell them how they must drive. Sounds like driving robots, what a shame.
@@WRXMAN-ms2mm This is what drivers did in the 60s and 70s and what made drivers like Clark and Sterling so good. Tires could last 4 GPs but they overheated easily and the cars were more mass sensitive than today. Fuel loads and fuel stops and sometimes gas tanks that weren't properly baffled allows those little Lotuses and BRM to beat much more powerful and larger cars from Ferrari, Jaguar etc...
They have capacity to spare, driving quickly is a job for them right now with all they are doing they still find time to watch each other on the large track-side monitors and chat about team politics or what is at the hospitality motor home for lunch after the race.
They also are very well payed to do all of that, so your concern for their "work load"is misplaced.
You lost me at strategy.
The fastest car has to win.
This might be my favorite video from this channel. Thanks
Marvelous breakdown, as always! Thank you for sharing
lift and coast is also a common thing in f1 since a lot of years. its nothing new that driver go of the throttle early before a corner to use less energy and recuperate more
Yep, but not lift and brake haha.
Just because it's been common for a number of years because of poor regulations doesn't mean it's not a bad thing. It's going to get even worse in 2026 and be even more of a blight on the sport.
lift and coast is primarily to help cool the car at hot tracks. not to help the battery recover energy.
Doesn’t tire wear also play in?
@@WTFZOMG also fuel saving
The real question is WHY are these changes being implemented
People want to win and if u want to win under these certain "conditions"..u have to innovate or cheat to have the egde(other than having a better driver)..these races are the perfect environment for innovation in technology that can be replicate or reproduce in daily drive car..
FIA executives have to justify their salaries
to make it "road relevant" for all the keyboard warriors demanding it on social media and to attract makers like audi
Money
1. Manufacturers want more road-relevant cars.
2. Fans and drivers want smaller and lighter cars.
3. Slower cars generally make for better racing.
4. The current ground effect rules make the cars difficult to race and set up.
5. I agree that they should've waited a couple years before making these changes now that the field is so close, but it is what it is.
Thanks again for another deep dive analysis. I too miss the old days of pure motorsport, but it makes so much sense to develop regen braking and not just waste all that energy on carbon disks and ceramic pads. Unfortunately it's crazy complicated, and some entertaining racing can still result because nobody can optimize all the variables better than someone else all the time.
This is a really great video. There’s quite a bit going on here, but you just communicate it all so well.
It can’t be easy deciding the level of detail to go into for a video like this, but you do a very good job and seem to always get the balance just perfect (in my opinion)!
I appreciate the video, but haven't watched F1 in awhile. IMO it's less about racing and more about rules lawyering. These new changes probably won't change that.
Finally, a really clear and detailed explanation about the 2026 rules. Thanks ❤❤❤❤
By the way, how happy are you now that F1 has become competitive?(Because of your video last year about F1 vs. WEC)
The past several races have been soo fun! Love to see it.
Thank you Jason for explaining this🙌🏻 you make it easy to understand how these rules will impact the sport.
Great video, Jason 👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻 It would be great if, during the races and qualifying sessions, we could have more on-screen information about the energy storage and flow of the cars. Such great engineering development we’re missing.
It's going to be like the 1970s 500hp super slow F1 cars. Also the double DRS thing seems unsafe. It also seems like a gimmick approach rather than one solid philosophy
Well if you reduce energy, you have to improve efficiency. In a straight line, there's no need for the cars to have so much drag (while accelerating), as it's just wasted energy.
@@EngineeringExplainedcompletely agreed but how much will we sacrifice in the turns to go faster in the straights? And the new press to pass is worse than Drs imo. Some drivers have speculated 8-10 seconds slower which on some tracks is close to the f2-f1 difference. Fingers crossed either way
@@EngineeringExplainedalso I'm a huge fan thanks for all the videos man
*What are the best strategies to make huge money/profit through cryptocurrency trading?*
Bitcoin has been unstable for a while now and could fall further or close to rise again. The truth is that no one knows, I believe it's the right time to buy and also get a pro's assistant
How can someone know a professional trader that's trustworthy when legit once are hard to find these days
You trade also?, I tried trading after watching some videos on < CZcams but still keep making losses, how do you
No I don't trade on my own anymore, I always required help and assistance
From my personal financial advisor
Amazing video and fantastic explanation. Love it ❤
Wow. That’s an amazing explanation. Thanks 👍
They always say the same thing
That's we'll get better competition , closer wheel-to-wheel and all that. They also say cars will be slower when in reality in a year or two they'll be faster.
It has been like this for as long as I have memory (I started watching in 1994). F1 is an engineering competition, not a racing one, really.
Just not true!
Cars slowed down after 04. They slowed down again in 09 and finally in 2014. Granted, Mercedes made it work in the hybrid era and by 2016 they had recovered those losses, but the cars were still slower than 04. It was only with the 2017 regs that we started seeing the fastest cars, and they slowed them down again with the current regs.
Also we do get better racing when they make it a priority, like in the 09-13 era. These current card also provide better racing, it's just the RB is dominating, so you don't see it at the front.
Problem is, they made a mistake with the 2017, forgot that allowing more aero brings us back to the early 00s era, and now that they've fixed it with ground effect, they're ruining it again by getting rid of it.
On the surface, smaller cars with less weight make for more nimble cars, which is good, but getting rid of ground effect downforce and over relying on regen is just idiotic. I dont midn hybrids, i dont mind EVs, I dont mind synthetic fuelds or whatever, but having to lift and coast and brake early and managing energy levels is just not racing imo
@@tiansivive current cars are faster than 2004 regs buddy
@@slavtrooper3851 but they're slower than 2017, which I used as an example to counter the point that the cars always get faster?
And tbh, I am not so sure they're faster than 04 either? Some records are still from that era, and the ones that aren't, are from the previous reg era
@@tiansivive no they are faster than 2017 too. They are as fast as 2019 basically which is peak gen
@@slavtrooper3851 by 2017, I meant those regs, not the year. And they're just not, all the records from comparable tracks are still from 2019 or 2020. Barcelona doesn't count due to removal of chicane, for example
We need fewer rules and the V12 back! This would revive the sport!
It could be a hybrid using sustainable fuel and all that BS they pretend to care about.
I just wish it could be posible to do something similar to the WEC, give the teams performance windows for power, weight, aero, etc, and let them go nuts with these parameters, but that would probably be expensive, and end with a team either dominating the championship, or out in the dust (looking at you, wingless 9X8)
We actually need Autounion V16’s back
V10s please, like the new RB17 track car with a Cosworth 15,000RPM 1000 HP 4.5 liter V10
@@bernardomotard YES! V10 were also amazing!
You say fewer rules than you say (essentially) that you will make V12 mandatory (as no one would choose it of their own choice (without the BOP of WEC, but even then it's not a good choice)). 🙂 I think requiring an NA 3.2 V12 would be great (twice the current engine with no turbo), but you'd have to rule that they have to use it as such an engine is large, heavy and inefficient when given a free-choice (e.g., V4 twin-turbo is smaller, lighter and more efficient by comparison).
This is brilliant! Thank you for your work.
Thanks for analysis 👍
Is it just me ... or are the people running F1 even nerdier than Jason for coming up with this junk? (And me after watching & enjoying this video ...)
Oh, and how do ANY of these regulations actually help accomplish either of the goals of racing:
Enjoyable spectator sport
Push engineering & innovation
Why not simply limit the tire size, implement crash safety regulations, and then let the race teams go at it?
Maybe the 345 kph limit for the electric motor is because it has a redline that is too low to push any further, maybe the electric drive should have a multispeed gearbox?
Near the end of the video, I think Jason explains how there will be new strategies and skills for the teams and drivers to work on. Lap-to-lap, and corner-to-corner, it seems likely that there's potential for massive differences in available electric power between cars.
Because series like Group B, Group C and DTM tried that in the past and they've all had to shut down due to skyrocketing costs and the richest team dominating the sport.
@@axelode45 good point - so then they'd also need to implement prototyping/development, salary, & per-race budgets and audit the teams' spending.
we live in the same timeline that had Group B. Le mans once had Group C cars flying by at incredible speeds. F1 was once the pinnacle of innovation and research. And now this.
And look what happened to those series. Costs shot through the roof, many drivers died and they had to be shut down. It's just not sustainable. Also, these new regulations will bring completely new engines so you'll get your research.
Okay, "we live in a [fill in the blank]", I would prefer actually watching drivers RACE each other than watch Main Character Red Bull win because the plot demands it.
This is absolutely innovation and research.
There’s nothing innovative about a V10
@axelode45they all collapsed because of the lack of cost caps and fia fiddling
@@Michael-pi8ps if we talk like that, there is nothing inovative in an hybrid V6 (they even got rid of the MGU-H), why don't make teams use the INNengine? The drivetrain rules changes are just every multiplayer game trying to nerf the meta
Thx for the step by step; wish you were my math teacher back in the day 🤗
Thanks you so much for this video. You should do a follow up video, or series of videos, answering people’s questions about this topic. You could even do a full video for each of your points in this video.
You should also do a more in-depth video discussing the actual strategies that might be employed to win a race or respond to events that might be encountered.
The sheer complexity of the new rule set should suggest everyone how bad they are. Overly-complicated, they introduce new problems in the attempt to fix other problems.
That's not how that works. I know nothing about these rules barring what's being discussed in this video, but complexity=/=bad necessarily. It simply means it's complex.
By your logic, pretty much every concept based in any type of physics, for example, is bad. Quite the hot take there, bud.
Have you read the current rules? It's available online and is already just as complex. The rules about battery deployment already exist, for 2026 its mostly just changed the numbers a bit.
Perhaps in my initial comment I expressed myself poorly, or too briefly. Yes, I've read the current technical regulation set (as I've done every year since the late '90s), and indeed I think that the current rules are already bad enough. And no, I don't think that complexity is bad "per se"... I'm an engineer and I work with physics every day in a synchrotron light facility, and I perfectly know that some things need to be complex in order to work well.
But I wasn't talking about chip architecture design or particle physics here, I was talking about a sport, which at its core is (or is supposed to be) a form of stimulating competition between the involved people and a form of entertainment for the crowds. And my opinion is that too many rules cripple creativity, reduce variety and shut the doors for possible surprises and changes across the grid. I have been watching F1 since Prost and Lauda were teammates at McLaren, and Alboreto drove for Ferrari, and I liked more the sport when F1 cars could have different shapes, were shod with different tires, and used different engines (V8s, V10s and V12s together on the same grid), each with unique power/torque delivery characteristics and making different sounds. And back in the day, and until about 20-15 years ago, sometimes someone in the paddock came out with a simple but brilliant idea that shook the pecking order among the teams, giving some underdog a chance to beat stronger teams and become more prominent forces in the sport, or at least shine for a little while.
But nowadays, we don't get to see anymore things like mass dampers, double and blown diffusers, side skirts, rear fans and freaking 6-wheelers, because the regulations are sooo incredibly tight and restrictive and anything slightly more ingenious than usual gets immediately banned. But why, really? If you ask me, I've got the feeling that this happens mostly to guarantee enough stability to the established powers and names in the paddock, rather than for the benefit of the sport as a whole. I understand and agree that things which pose some hazard on the track and things which would rise costs too much should get banned or limited fairly quickly, but creativity and ingenuity should not be restrained and punished by default in this sport. Not in Formula 1, for god sake!
I wanna be clearer also on another matter regarding the new regulations: I'm not at all against rules designed to push the teams to adopt technologies in line with modern automotive trends, but I believe that teams and drivers should have more/enough freedom to deploy the amount of fuel and energy allocated to them for a race in the way they consider the most efficient and effective for finishing and trying to win the race. In this respect, the WEC championship has achieved a much better result with a much simpler set of technical regulations (106 pages which include both French and English text, compared to the F1 rulebook which is 177 pages only for the English version), without imposing any strange or unnatural restriction on when and where to use the total allowed power on the track, while at the same time limiting the overall energy consumption during a race and total power output of these endurance cars. And although the WEC championship is super focused on energy management, fuel savings etc, they even managed to leave the ERS as an optional component for the hypercars in their rulebook (but making it convenient to have it in the cars), while at the same time giving the manufacturers the freedom to use whatever engine architectures they like. That's a very good example of "sometimes simpler is better", in my opinion. And that's what I meant when I labeled the 2026 F1 technical regulations as "overly-complicated" and bad for the sport.
Keep the smaller size and active aero. Drop the hybrid system and go to V10s.
Hybrid is the future, limiting regen is ridiculous.. More efficient electric motors, batteries and converters should be accelerating by sports.
Yeah nah. Smaller engines and hybrid system is LIT! They actually manage to go faster with these new power trains!
But I do feel they should allow active aero and active suspension. There's no reason not to!
@@Deveonn I think every single fan would be happy with an NA v10 + a hybrid. Brings back the good sound to it being a “premier” Motorsport. It can still be small displacement, just tired of how crap the v6 sounds
@@TheOtherPlayer My point of dropping the hybrid is to reduce weight.
The current cars are too heavy.
Cars would be much bigger and heavier if they went for V10. The engine itself would be lighter, but we would go to at least 150kg more like close to 200kg of fuel to keep the average racepace. Not go down from 100kg to 70kg.
FANtastic. That was such fun, following your logic there. I wasn't following too close, of course, but --like MM8436 said--I'll be looking for the followup in 2026. Great work, and you're a lot more entertaining to follow than my college physics teacher, even if he did study under Niels Bohr!
Always great explaining,thank you for this breakdown as love F1. like you said it seems they will be slower but engineers will come up with some clever ways to mitigate all these hindering changes.
I'm really worried. The hyper-focus on environmentalism keeps detracting from entertainment generation after generation. Nobody wants to see which car will be able to save more fuel or to recharge batteries more. The public wants to see them go FAST and SCREAMING
Watch drag races if that's what you're into. F1 engineered toward progress and the future. Manufacturers have no use for outdated technology that will never be legal again.
11:24 You just showed on the white board that the new cars have a top speed of 365 compared to the current 350. Than you immediately say that Top Speed will be down.
Sorry, meaning from their potential (450 km/h vs 365 km/h).
@@EngineeringExplainedright. So in practice, the new cars will be faster on the straights, and slower in the corners. Hopefully allowing for more overtaking. That appears to be the goal of the rules.
The math was good. I like.
I'm long out of school now though so had to think about some of those Force Drag equations again. I like the approach to all of this! Felt like a great way to analyze energy and deployment and lap times over a race. Great vid
Bruh! This was SO meaty! Excellent information. I was just wondering if you lose leads when you book them on the calendar at a time inconvenient to them. I suppose they would just update their invitation from their email, right? That's the only question from a nearly 2 hour buffet. You rock, man. Seriously.
I wish you were in charge of F1 rules. I get the objective of being fast and efficient; I think they are achieving neither
I don’t understand why sustainability needs to be a part of F1. It’s about putting as much power to the ground as quickly as possible, not trying to save the world with renewable energy. Each team probably uses and emits twice as much fuel / CO2 driving themselves to the track than the cars use in the actual race. I understand it, but I don’t get it.
It's bullsh*t. Pure greenwashing. Imagine in the future if athletes were mandated to be vegan...
Isn't it more about innovating the industry? Putting as much more power down is what Americans do on drag strips.
Its marketing gimmick, its not about sustainability, its just another word for green washing!
They can make ICE sustainable, its not a technical issue its a political issue! F1 is the most political of all motorsports.
@@willemkanon4020no, thisnis some talking point invented a couple of decades ago because it just happened to work out that way, but it was never the intention.
Apparently my reply got deleted by yout*be. Let me comment again: It's bullsh*t. Pure greenwashing.
...lucky me, I nerdy missed the small font statement at the bottom in the opening screen.... LoL...
You're getting real devious in your old age Jason.... It's fun though....
This has got to be and will be the nerdiest video on this topic! Love it!
F1 doesn't know if they want to be the fastest cars or the best drivers, they should either allow teams to do wathever they want or make everyone use the same car, but then it would be either indy car or top fuel thats why they try to be both and achieve nothing. F1 is not the peak of racing anymore
Why? None of those two are good options. A compromise between the two is, and always has been, the way to go.
Agreed.
@@axelode45 if the cars don't have rules then whoever wins is the one with the best team (the most money) if the cars have to many rules then however wins is the one with the best drivers (the most money)
@@Usuario-wr2kwI mean that's a very simple way of looking at it but yeah, why would you want any of those extremes?
Formula 1 , mehh. Did you see Red Bull RB17, engine is 4.5 liter v10. That is what i am excited.
Always a great listen. Thanks for getting to the point that these strange-seeming constraints might have been carefully crafted to make F1 more interesting by increasing the overtaking opportunities via different energy management strategies.
That was a nice detail at the end, if they can't harvest enough energy while going balls to the wall... And the driver at the front especially can't afford to do slow brakes but the guy following is doing that all the time before we get really close. That is a really good idea, lengthening the braking distance is very crucial and there hasn't been any way to really do it. But this.. is a good solution to that particular problem.
Yeah could make for some fun racing!
Slowing down earlier on the straights is actually a good thing because it will lead to more overtaking. So inadvertently this mismatch in power sources will have a good outcome 👌
Hopefully so!
@@EngineeringExplained I don't understand why the rate of deceleration affects the amount of energy converted from kinetic to electrical?
If your Delta in kinetic energy between 300kph and 100kph is 2MJ then it should be the same amount of energy regardless of how hard they brake?
Well harder braking cant be done completely regenerative, so it is instead wasted as heat
@@Michallote ah good point, ideally you'd only be braking with regen but not the pads, but it can't regen that hard.
@@Matt-Hindrancebecause the kinetic energy recovery system is only allowed to recover energy at a maximum rate of 350 kW.
SUPER INTERESTING seeing a real American engineer using METRIC.
I'm so grateful to you for that
Good thing he still used horsepower 👍🇺🇸
Haha, pretty much all American engineers use metric behind closed doors, it's public facing material that gets translated.
The U.S. automotive industry has been fully metric for decades. In the '90's I was a Product Designer for a manufacturer of analytical instruments. Since the inception of the company in the early '80's the products had all been designed with U.S. traditional measurements and hardware. When given the primary responsibility for a new product line and also being aware that more than 50% of the company sale were to foreign countries I suggested that we switch to metric. The management was initially wary, worrying that it would increase cost. After the purchasing department looked into the matter it was determined that there was no cost impact and the switch was made. Attempting to do anything as simple as replacing an SAE threaded fastener in, e.g., Japan, is difficult. In the U.S. any hardware store has stocks of metric fasteners. These days any product made in China will be fully metric and American consumers can't get enough of them.
That's really good to know. It would be great if general public were to slowly change to metric. Is so frustrating that I can go almost everywhere in Europe, Asia and South America or elsewhere and measures are the same. Only when going to us is a mess with everything measure related.
I only understand miles because I love to drive but the first time I heard Fahrenheit apart from school I thought they were f*ing billing!
I can only dream...
Btw in Canada use imperial or metric?
TLDR: In 2026 the team that makes the most efficient power unit will dominate again.
Im realy concerned about the power cutting of at 345.
In racing if you get a better exit onto a straight you are gaining a tiny bit down the entire straight witch puts you into position to go side by side into a breaking zone usually.
With those new rules you are only gaining untill you hit artificial vmax then you are both just sitting there at the same speed.
With normal cars you are always that little bit faster but when the power cuts suddenly you hit a wall
9:32 that's like driving a 918 spyder on daytona. No time to charge up.
For being eco friendly they will use a new battery each race as they degrade each race so will reduce capacity which is performance
On a consumer-level, it is, how fast can we sell these things? Forget actual travel. We can achieve faster sales by rushing to the end-life of the car, making it to the scrap yard sooner.
Parts changes are limited throughout a season. You get penalized if you exceed that.
As a Ferrari fan i feel a little bit offended 😂😂😂
Sounds like a blast..
Great deep dive video though!
Every F1 rule change from the past fifteen years has been in the wrong direction. I have zero interest in electric go karts.
Then you simply have never been a fan of racing. You like sounds, and that’s okay. You can watch videos while us race fans watch racing.
@@EarendilStar I am a fan of racing. I'm not a fan of the FIA dictating the winner through rule changes. All they need to do is leave the rules alone and let the teams compete.
@@EarendilStar nice try at very bad gatekeeping, come again
@@GoatTheGoat But that’s not what you said, you said you have “zero interest” in a race car with a particular power train. Since racing is about race craft and driving a vehicle on the edge of adhesion, I fail to see how the drivetrain matters…except for the sound.
@@AdminAbuse I don’t think you know what Gatekeeping is. They’re the ones saying they want to stay on the other side of the gate; “no interest in watching”.
Can't wait to see this competition in energy management.
Exactly.
Seen the punditry on this, but its nice to see the math. Cheers!
wow, early break makes for such enticing motorspot show!
This is why I quit watching F1 in the 90's I'm glad I got to enjoy it in the best years. I'm not saying the drivers aren't amazing. I'm saying the rules are crap. If you want to push all the battery stuff then make 2 classes. All ICE and all Electric. I bet you will see what people really care about.
They did. Its called Formula E and the only people really interested in it are the kind who would not look oyt of places among the Just Stop Oil protesters. 😂 And it is being used as a warehouse for drivers who can't quite make it in F1. 😂
Even the FIA knows its boring AF. That's why it is no longer trying to shove it down our throats as much these days. 😂
Formula-E is out there - anyone watching it?
@@stevemawer848 Exactly my point. People who watch motorsports don't care about "sustainable fuel or racing"
The "fastest" motorsport in the world, with this mindset, will be left in the dust by a 1999 Hayabusa with 2 refills.
I love your videos, thank you for the details and physics
I mean it will still be the fastest motorsport around a race circuit.
@@axelode45LMP1 is quickly catching up
I don't know if the current regs also hit this, but in the 2018-2020 seasons, it was noted by top teams in Monza that the top speed limit is not actually from power, but gearing. They have a fixed number of gears and need to have the torque to space that out at all the tracks on the year, even if that means top speed with DRS is limited by gearing/engine RPM topping out instead of fuel consumption/power directly. I am curious to see what will happen with the increased e power (and much less ICE power) if teams will space their transmissions tighter or have a higher top gear that is a bit off from the rest of the series.
This is the first time I want to go back to school and do math again. Amazing. Thanks I love F1 and I never went past precal cause I got bored
It's going to be horrible... I'll just wait and see
I can't wait to see the super formula being faster than F1 on certain track
that has happened before. street family cars being faster than f1.
It's already been horrible because you forced yourself to watch Mercedes and Red Bull win every race for the past decade. You're gonna cry about artificial competition, as always.
@@NobodyAsked-xh8cs damn that's a useless comment
It's more useless to cry about watching Red Bull win every race because the regs made it that way, just like Mercedes 10 years ago.
@@NobodyAsked-xh8cs I don't cry about it. I actually don't mind watching a team dominate the competition. You're lost bro
F1 2026 will use hot wheels miniature cars instead.
Thx for covering F1. Such a seriously complex form of racing. I've watched nearly every race since 1988 when I finally got cable TV.
I remember reading a few years ago that an engineer in F1 said they wish they can recover from the front wheels, too, just so that they have more energy recovery for more average power for the the entire race.
I'm still a bit devastated that they got rid of the MGU-H but I understand that it is so complex that it bars the entry for more manufacturers. Also, it's not like the MGU-H does all that much to control boost since they still have to use wastegates on long straights.
I, for one, want slower cars that are harder to drive. Bring the driver skill more sharply into focus.
You can make a faster car which is harder to drive too. It's not about "sustainability" it's about keeping manufacturers happy.
Then go watch literally anything other than f1. F1 was supposed to be about pushing man and cutting edge tech to their absolute limits. F1 doesn’t stand out from the crowd anymore so now i just watch imsa.
@@squanto6876 Agreed. These rules are retarded.
Just make them race golf carts then.
Remember in 2014 when these hybrid rules came in people said car will be slower now v6 produces around 900 hp so after some years team will find a way to increase power of these 2026 cars
Sorry, I find these F1 changes boring. The premiere class of auto racing has become just a packet of new rules. No longer a fan.
What do you mean? FORMULA 1 is the rules and regulations from FiA. The championship that uses those rules is named Formula 1. So, if you were a fan, i dont understand what you mean by packet of rules. It always has been. That's the entire point.
I like the idea of cars getting smaller.
Hopefully it's a continuing trend and every few years they'll get smaller and smaller.
That'll translate to closer racing, more space to pass hopefully.
Those are called "go-karts"...😊
you forget its a science show foremost, and a sport second. This seems to be just another step in the evolution of EV tech, and itll still be absolutely bonkers and suspenseful to watch
Wtf are you on about? Every racing series has rules or a "formula"
Great analysis! One other consequence of choosing to slow earlier before corners is forcing drivers behind to also slow, even if they're on a "lower energy" strategy, where they're choosing to harvest less to arrive at the corner quicker... will make for some "interesting" driver strategies for preventing overtakes, etc. Not sure yet if this is a good or bad thing, I suppose it depends who is doing it and how much. Not sold on the new rules, to be honest. Really don't think they're much of a move forward, except I do like allowing active aero, although I suspect even that will be severely restricted in terms of "differential" aero to help cornering, etc...
Love the Ferrari snipe. Awesome video as usual. Let's hope they will be faster not slower. I'm old now and only care about bringing back those V10s. But hey, technology is super interesting as well
Yet another massive change to the rules. Now we are going to have the same crap as the last couple of years where one or two teams gets things perfect, and are far, far faster than the others. Makes for crappy racing, with wins of 20-30 seconds or more
Wish they would make incremental changes, if at all
They lost me a couple of years ago, this isn't going to make me want to come back SMH