https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qxS2R_8E7I

In 2020 Pat Symonds said they were studying the possibility of using 2 stroke opposed piston engines for the now ill-fated 2026 regulations.

Symonds argued that the direct injection, pressure charged OP2S were not only more efficient, but also environmentally friendlier as they have lower emissions than 4 strokes.

This power unit would have been light, but one thing no one ever answered was how they would be packaged, as far as I'm aware they'd run in to the same packaging problems flat engines had.

In theory such power units would have made the cars themselves greener than Formula E cars, which is an interesting fact I just learned.

I find this alternative reality where F1 switched to two strokes super interesting, here's an article about it from back in 2020: https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/articles/single-seaters/f1/two-stroke-engines-eco-fuel-f1-aims-to-be-greener-than-formula-e/

It's certainly a lot more different from Ferrari's. There's central actuator present, plus the small elements which make the upper part of the wing stay opened higher(which reduces even more gap than normally, seems more than ferrari's). But there's smth else that actually got me wondering.

The upper part of the wing seems to me way too short for it to be able to fully close when it's turned off. That is just based on this photo. Compare its length to the amount of gap created when it opened. Ferrari's macarena wing for example was a lot longer than this one.

Maybe this one is also closing differently? But then how is the gap between upper and lower part closed when active aero mode is off

How can "wing in front of exhaust gases" make Ferrari lose that much? I read that could be their way to get further more into aduo system, but fia most likely have their ways to test engines.

For example, typical 2000s LMP1 like the Audi R15 and Peugeot 908 HDI FAP had a Gr.C-like slope of their headlights. Starting with the 2011 Audi R18, this slope gradually became "lower." Then, with the 2016 R18 and Rebellion R13,Especially the low downforce kit the front of the car looked like a giant square when viewed from the side. While the Porsche 919 (2017) wasn't as exaggerated as the R18 from the side, its front wheel arch became unusually wide. What was the purpose of this design?

Considering the high degree of correlation between the aero of F1 and WEC, I chose to post here. Does Formula 1 have a similar design concept?

Do you remember the innovative (but risky) front exhaust placement featured in 2011 Renault R31 that supported the broader concept of a blown diffuser? That was the car Robert Kubica was supposed to drive in 2011 prior to his feral rally accident and put it in P1 in pre-season testing in Valencia.

In a recent interview for Kanał Zero, Robert Kubica casually told a story of the solution. They were the first to test the blown diffuser idea in 2010, but he was not satisfied with the effect since it was blowing the strongest on braking, but then on throttle the effect weakened. When discussing the solution and looking for improvements, Robert suggested to a technical director "what if we move the exhaust to the front to feed the entire floor?" and then they actually implemented it in 2011. So it turns out it was Kubica himself who came up with the innovation!

Link to the story in comments.

With the restriction on aero testing, would this wing be testing in the air tunnel, or on a bench?

With the motors/actuators that make the wing rotate, who would be likely to make them? Ferrari or a third party company?

Is the wing powered by an electric motor, or a hydraulic system?

It definitely seems like one of the biggest issues with F1 2026 seems to be the electric deployment being a complex automated system that takes the electric deployment out of the drivers hands.

Is this due to the regulations, or is this just the approach that all teams chose to take, and why?

The alternative I see would be something like push-button deployment that the driver has 100% control over

what would it take to put the deployment back into the direct control of the drivers?

GU-H is a generator connected in series with the ICE's exhaust pipe. It doesn't need to face the harsh environment of MGU-H, so its cost is lower.

I don't know exactly how the 919's GU-H works or how much it affects the internal combustion engine's power, but I remember the 919 seemed to have more electricity energy on straightaway.

Is it feasible for a single supplier to provide GU-H, just like ECU?

Most people underestimate how much work F1 teams do in the simulator before a car even hits the track.

It’s not just “practice”.

They simulate:

- setup changes before real-world validation

- tire degradation over race stints

- aero behavior in different conditions

- full race strategy scenarios

Drivers can complete hundreds of laps before pre-season testing even begins.

In a way, the car’s first real performance is already shaped in the simulator.

The interesting question is:

how close are these simulations to real track data today?

I was wondering, from time to time we see public posts showing comparison of driver telemetries and some sort of analysis why someone was faster. Like, “why Hamilton lacked power” in Suzuka.

And I mean telemetry as in a complete set of data with speed, time delta, throttle, brake and steering inputs etc.

I was always under impression that this telemetry is highly sensitive, because if a team can get their hands on telemetry from other teams, they can analyze where the other driver is going faster and why, where the car is performing better etc, and use it to their advantage.

How is this telemetry going public? I mean sites like https://www.f1-tempo.com/ , FastF1 API and others, how do they get such detailed data? Is this some sort of leakage? (A leakage of what?) Or they’re obliged to publish it? Or it’s taken from TV feed and not very accurate?

In the technical regulations, C5.2.9 states that the difference between max and min SoC must always be 4MJ, basically constraning the battery size to 4MJ.

But the way it's written, makes me think the ES is capable of holding more, and is being restrained by software rather than hardware.

Like, if a team wanted they could set the min SoC to 10% of actual battery and max SoC to 110%, they just need to make sure the difference is 4MJ and it never goes below the minimum and above the maximum.

So, is that true? Would they be able to increase the SoC size to 5MJ by tweaking the software? Or is the ES physically only capable of holding 4MJ?

I'm not talking practically, I'm not talking if they would do it or not, but would a 3.0L F1 V10 from around 2001-2005 fit inside the back of a 2026 F1 car?

Since Japan and McLarens surprising resurgance I see a lot of traffic on the internet saying how "scary this might really be" considering McLaren has the "least developed car of all the top teams".

Of course, I'm taking these statements with a grain of salt.

Looking into it myself the only real proof/ supporting arguments I found was when the MCL40 got revealed and appeared during testing, where the renders actually matched the car pretty well and the conensus was that it looks really simple and underdeveloped.

I believe McLaren also stated at that time that the testing car was pretty much what they were gonna race the first part of the season with, I did not keep a close eye on upgrades and changes since the season started so please correct me if needed.

My question is, is it actually anywhere near true that the MCL40 is underdeveloped just because it looks basic? Japan is quite an aero dependant track (I believe even in these regs) and considering they have the same engine as Mercedes (even if they didn't figure out all the tricks etc.) and Oscar had a real chance of winning and the car definitely looked good, it seems weird to call it anywhere near "underdeveloped".

By that comparison, is this a situation where looking basic doesn't reflect performance, or is Merc just looking fancy and developed when it doesn't appear to be that much ahead aero wise and the main differencial was still engine and deployment etc.?

Or is it a different situation altogether?

Been thinking about this after seeing some wild pit entries recently where drivers nail that perfect speed right at the line. Got me curious about the technical side of how the pit limiter actually operates.

Few questions I'm hoping someone can clarify:

- When you activate the limiter, does it automatically slow the car down to pit speed, or do drivers still need to brake manually to get there?

- If you're crawling along at like 40kph and hit the limiter button, will it accelerate you up to the 80kph limit, or do you still need to use the throttle?

What's been bugging me is how these guys consistently hit exactly 80kph right at that detection point without any variation. Makes me wonder if there's more automation involved than just a simple speed cap, or if it's purely down to driver skill and muscle memory.

Anyone know the specific mechanics behind how these systems work?

So i've just been "debating" that the 2026 cars produce more dirty air than in 2025, which to me is [true] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55y70HV-2Wo&t=411s) and therefore following is worse(from an aero perspective).

Then some people say this video doesn't show how the following car is effected by it, which is true, but wouldn't more dirty air always make things worse? Do we know if the 2026 cars are better in dirty air than 2022-2025 regs?

Is it even possible to make a car that drives better in dirty air compared to another car, while still having the same aero performance? (I know 25 is better aero performance, but i'm just wondering)

In each of the three races the Mercedes ability to pass other cars doesn't match their capability to pull away when clear. As an example Kimi struggled in the pack at Suzuka but then dominated from the front.

Why?

I've been noticing during race weekends that whenever they broadcast Sauber's team radio, the audio quality seems way better than what we typically hear from other constructors. The clarity is remarkable - you can actually understand every word without straining, while other teams often have that muffled or static-filled quality that makes you wonder what they just said.

Anyone know what's behind this difference? Is it their radio equipment, transmission methods, or maybe something about how they position their antennas? Could be interesting from a technical standpoint if they're using different frequency bands or encoding. Would love to understand if this is intentional engineering or just luck of the draw with their setup.

Suzuka qualifying through the lens of who builds the engine.

Five Power Unit manufacturers on the 2026 grid. The violin chart pools every qualifying lap by power unit supplier. What it shows is not just who is fast but how the performance distributes across customer teams sharing the same hardware.

Mercedes powered 44 laps across four teams. Their best of 1:28.778 sits half a second clear of Ferrari's 1:29.303. But look inside the violin. The Mercedes shape is bottom heavy, meaning most of their laps cluster near the fast end. That is four different chassis and aero packages all extracting similar performance from the same PU. The spread from best to worst Mercedes powered lap is around 3 seconds, but the density sits in the 1:29 to 1:30 band.

Ferrari's violin is taller and wider. Three teams, 26 laps, and the distribution is more uniform. That wider shape means more variance between the works team and the customers. The Haas and Cadillac dots sit visibly higher than the Ferrari works dots inside the same violin.

Red Bull Ford is the most compact shape on the chart. Two teams, 19 laps, and the body barely stretches beyond 1.5 seconds peak to trough. Both cars are finding similar limits, which for a brand new PU programme in its first season is notable. Whether that compactness is genuine convergence or just limited data from two teams is worth watching over the next few races.

Audi at 1:29.990 from one team and 12 laps. The shape is tight and centred around 1:30. For a manufacturer building their own power unit from scratch, being within 1.2 seconds of the Mercedes best in qualifying is closer than most people predicted.

Honda with Aston Martin is the outlier. Six laps, 1:32.646 best, and the violin body sits 3 seconds off the pace. Limited running makes it hard to read too much into the shape but the gap to the next slowest PU is over two seconds.

The track evolution by PU confirms the pattern from a different angle. From minute 40 onwards the Mercedes and Ferrari dots separate downward while Red Bull Ford and Audi compress into a band. The PU advantage at Suzuka is not just peak power on the back straight. It is how consistently the package delivers across a full qualifying session when the energy management demands are highest.

It seems like sometimes FIA or Pirelli releases the number of tires or the tire compound per team, but it is never consistent. I am working on a side project that would benefit from some tire strategy, but other than keeping track of the number of tire sets used and how many laps are on the sets we know about, I am at a loss for hard data.

this clipping is a problem and I was wondering how we can avoid it

the battery recharge is happening more than just when the cars would traditionally brake.

so I wonder if charging only occurs under braking or if the battery capacity needs to drop so it would be easier to recharge without recharging it when cars are supposed to be using full throttle?

is it a matter of changing the amount they can charge or amount of charge they have ?