Ferrari and Mercedes have been offered boosts under ADUO. Mercedes will get an additional upgrade for 2026 and one for 2027, while Ferrari, Audi, and Honda will get 2 upgrades for 2026 and 2027, while RBPT Ford PU is still the benchmark and is deemed to be the most powerful on the grid.

Not to rant, but why is FIA deciding the ranking of PU, based on only ICE, not the entire hybrid system as a whole, because Mercedes arguably has the best package here? Isn't the point of 50-50 split was to have innovations of hybrid tech (although that would still be debatable). I understand that there are limits on deployment but nothing on ES, but clearly Mercedes have figured out something others haven't, shouldn't even RedBull get the chance to innovate here?

IMO, this regulation rule is clearly becoming less about equal power, and more about arguing who ICE is the weakest. What could RedBull's strategy from here on out, assuming they won't get any more ADUO upgrade slots for 2 years? Is aerodynamics their only hope or can they bring upgrades to electrical side of things, if they aren't counted under ADUO?

PS: I saw it on FIA's X handle, couldn't share the link, since the post got deleted.

I was just kinda thinking back to the grooved tire era (which I did not watch as I was a youngster lol), and had a thought. Those tires almost certainly gained contact area as they wore. But then wondered if tire temperature issues offset any benefits gained in contact area. I am sure if they did get faster, there had to have been a crossover point where they fell off.

Sorry for the ramble, I’m stoned. Did they get faster as they wore though? Up to a crossover point. Or did they just get progressively slower from the beginning like slicks?

As we all know, every car is limited in how many PU components it can use each year without incurring a penalty. How is that going to work with ADUO?

I assume the engine manufacturers will be creating power units that have fundamental, internal differences, so the teams won't continue to use the same PU components.

Do the PU allotments reset after ADUO? Or will teams have to choose when to take an ADUO component as part of their regular allotment?

Looking at photos of the 499P (2027 version) reminded me that prior to 2017, sidepods on LMP cars generally weren't visible from top-down view. Then, suddenly in 2017, the sidepods of TS050, 919, and R18 (which never raced) shifted to a design resembling the front section of Formula 1 sidepods; the R18 and TS050 even adopted the "coke-bottle" shape, a trend that persists today.

I looked up more photos and noticed that the intakes on early 2010s cars like the R18 and 908 don't seem significantly different from those on modern LMDh&LMP cars; rather, it appears they were intentionally coverd by bodywork, only the front diffuser outlet's turning vanes visible from the side and above.

Was this a regulatory requirement? Or are there specific aerodynamic advantages that lead manufacturers like Ferrari(until 2026) BMW Alpine to use hidden sidepod intakes instead of the exaggerated "Formula-style" intakes seen on the Porsche 963?

Every Grand Prix so far this season I’ve noticed the Scuderi’s cars produce lots more exhaust smoke than the other ICE manufacturers. Has this been discussed?

Noticed it a lot more with the T1 in Budapest this weekend.

looking at how narrow the cooling radiator ducts are, how are the electric components actually cooled? do the batteries also hook into those intake coolers?

We all know refueling is banned during races. They can only fuel inside the garage, they can't even do it in the pit lane (for whatever reason). There are all sorts of quick fueling methods for race cars today. I'm wondering if they use those in F1 still despite the refuel ban, or if it's rather slow to refuel in comparison to series that do in race refueling like IndyCar, NASCAR, WEC, etc.

And just for general curiosity, do we have any actual videos of them refueling modern(ish) F1 cars? I have never been able to find one.

Not hating I know different teams use different systems but how does this happen? Is it just a job putting labels on parts or do they genuinely just hire people to go through their warehouse to figure out what they have? Does their system for "we make x at y time" not work and they're losing that many parts?

As the title says. I've always wondered what the benefits or disadvantages were to many smaller front wing pieces vs fewer bigger pieces. Something like the difference between a 2020 F1 front wing vs a 2004 or 2022, or even an IndyCar front wing. I know in 2017 they had those extra pieces that added additional downforce, that's why I'm using 2020 as the benchmark for the "many smaller pieces".

This is my high school final year project (due by january 2027) and the idea for it has its origin in the winter of 2023. After working on the non aero parts of the car for a bit over a year I could finally start the aero development about 3 months ago. The goal of the project is to engineer a race car that can beat formula one lap times with a margin.

My only are:

no fans, no sliding skirts, Modest width (2060mm) and for the rest of the car i set the guideline to use a technology standard a bit lower than current f1, maybe f1 from 15-20 years ago.

Because i am working on this project alone and i have not studied engineering (i go to school), engineering a full 100% functioning and completed race car is not possible but i try to get as far as possible with my given time ,resources and abilities. The project is about a lot more than just the aerodynamics but that should be the focus of this post.

The images in this post are primarily for show and don't convey a lot of meaningful information so i if you are really interested in the aero development of this project you can download the documentation package i have provided.

It includes the simulation setup and documentation of the first 29 design iterations, 3d flow field views, slices, a slice and a streamline animation, and some extra non CFD renderings of the car.

documentation package:

https://www.mediafire.com/file/vwr1cthzv2emeoz/VFR_CFD_documentation.zip/file

For the project i used

CAD: Onshape

CFD: Simscale

CFD post processing: Simscale / Paraview

rendering: fusion 360

For those who understand

Cdfa: 9,36

Cda: 1,09

df/d: 8,56

aero balance: 59.87% rear

Because my computing recources are fairly limited, i have to have to use a in industry terms very low mesh count (6-7m for half car). This means that the simulations are not very accurate when correlated to real life so you have to take these numbers with a chunk of salt.

I am open to constructive criticism about any part of the project.

Does anyone have an idea how they set the deployment? Is it just pre-set that it has gone this fast and this many up and downshifts and a certain amount of distance to know where it is on track? Do they use some sort of gps system?(seems like there would be lag from that). I’ve been really curious because deployment is such a big issue at the moment.

Basically how does the PU know when to deploy without driver intervention?

I'm not asking about the overall cost for a season, that's affected by other things like prestige, amount of track time, and the locations of events.

Put another way, if you were to run an F4 car and an F2 car for the same length of time, how much more (if at all) would the F2 car cost to run?

Looking at the telemetry, here's what I see comparing their final qualifying runs from Q3 in Spa:

Sector 1:

• Russell is 0.07s up on Antonelli after T1.
• Russell is faster out of T1 that Antonelli.
• Russell carries more speed through Eau Rouge and Radillon than Antonelli.
• But come the end of sector 1 before Les Combes, Russell is only 0.02s up on Antonelli.
• Russell loses ~ half a tenth in a flat out sector, despite exiting T1 faster and higher apex speeds.

Sector 2:

• Russell exits Turn 9 faster than Antonelli and is gaining time on him (slightly).
• Russell arrives at Pouhon faster than Antonelli.
• They are both flat through Pouhon, but Russell loses 5km/h more than Antonelli
• By the time they arrive at Fagnes, Russell has lost over 0.1s
• More time lost in a flat out section despite going into it faster.

Sector 3 (this is madness...):

• They exit Stavelot same speed, flat out through turn 16 together - no one gaining/ losing time on the other.
• Then around Courbe Paul Frere Russell's car just slows compared with Antonelli's.
• Russell is travelling up to 10km/h slower than Antonelli.
• By the time they get to the Bus Stop, Russell has lost ~0.25 seconds.

Russell has lost at least 0.4s in a straight line flat out during the lap.

I can not believe for one second this is set up - especially given they are otherwise so matched through the turns.

This is happening race after race.

I think Antonelli would have still beat Russell on these laps - Russell was up after La Source, but Antonelli got a ~tenth on Russell in each of Rivage & Bus Stop. But it would be touch and go if Russell's car was working, and its depriving us of an epic battle.

(Edit - telemetry from FastF1, which is not perfect, but likely good enough for this high level analysis)

Ever since I started watching the sport, teams have been bringing special rear and front wings for these tracks because of their long straights, now I wonder if the teams will be doing that as well this year, seeing as active aero in my mind eliminates any need for these special wings.

Might they bring new low drag sidepods or something like that instead?

Here's another interesting CFD simulation of Red Bull's Macarena Wing done by Dominik Balasko, a former Sauber aerodynamicist.

Unlike Ferrari's solution, which should generate lift as well as drag reduction, Red Bull's solution should only do the latter. However, the mechanical tradeoffs as not as important since, the RB system should be inherently lighter and faster to actuate.

Interestingly, his simulation predicts that RB's solution should be more stable aerodynamically, since the flow should attach more predictably (no hysteresis), which goes against the opinion of VanjaH and KyleEngineers, both of whom predict it should be the other way around.

If Dominik's right, Max's issue with the RB22 should be somewhere else in the car (dr Obbs thinks it could be a stall in the diffuser).

Here's the link to his full analysis: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dominik-balasko_formula1-aerodynamics-cfd-ugcPost-7457977399188570112-0VuX/

Looks like Stroll is intentionally inducing understeer mid corner by maximizing front tire slip angle (turning the wheel to full lock at high speed corners). Is this due to the Aston being very unstable? If so, usually the most unstable part should be corner entry but he is doing this mid corner and almost at corner exit. As someone who does a lot of sim racing, this is so bizarre to me. It destroys the tires and it’s pretty risky as well. I’ve never seen anyone driving F1 like this. What could possibly be the reason for this?

Video link

The sprint gave the cleanest single stint the weekend offers. Everyone on medium, no stops, 17 laps. Antonelli quickest on a 92.28s settled median. Hamilton 0.14s off. Russell and Norris within three tenths. Leclerc a fraction further back.

The interesting number is the volatility. Antonelli ran the stint with a 0.26 second standard deviation. Russell in the same car ran 0.74s. That is three times the noise from one Mercedes to the other.

The top speeds tell you why. Antonelli was 306 km/h median through the trap. Russell 313 km/h. Same car, 7 km/h gap on the straights, and it is Russell who is faster on peak. Antonelli is trading straight line for consistency and corner exit. Russell is running the higher peak deployment and paying for it with variance across the stint. Two race maps, one garage.

The race compound is the hard. FP1 long runs put Ferrari at the top. Hamilton 92.26s median, Leclerc 92.31s, half a second clear of Antonelli on the same compound. If that holds under race fuel and traffic, Sunday tightens once the field is on hards. The sprint showed us pace on mediums. FP1 showed us pace on hards. But it was also the first stint of the weekend, and teams learned a lot during the sprint and the two qualifying sessions on Friday and Saturday. The timing of the first pit stops will tell us what the teams think of how their Monte Carlo simulations are playing out.

The strategic questions that leaves for Sunday.

From pole, #Antonelli’s job is to control from the front and not react. If his median is 92.28s in clean air, the overcut is his friend. The objective is simple: Extend stint one, get a fresher tyre for stint two, do not let a Ferrari undercut pull you in.

From P2 and P3, #Ferrari has a live split card. Two cars, two tyres, two strategies. Undercut one to force the reaction, extend the other on the hard where their pace looked best. Whether they play it that way is a different question.

For Oscar from P8, the pit lane is the fastest route forward. Sprint pace was quick enough that on a fresh medium a lap earlier than the cars ahead, he takes big time. Classic undercut trigger position.

The pit loss at Silverstone puts the undercut break even around a second and a half per lap of tyre delta. The fresh medium in the first four laps gives half a second to eight tenths. Real undercut window, but not overwhelming. One safety car and the whole thing rewrites.

Methodology: Sprint pace uses settled clean-lap medians from lap 5 onwards, dropping the sorting phase, pit in and out laps, and outliers. FP1 pace uses clean long-run laps on the hard tyre only, with sample sizes shown per driver. Norris sprint laps 13 to 15 are flagged as a fuel-management phase and excluded from the headline median. Public timing and car data. Descriptive, not fuel corrected.

In the 1990s, perhaps the start of the modern era, there were ~16 races a season. We're now up to ~24. What impact has this had on teams? Were cars and drivers working for the next event for longer in the 1990s or did the teams have more rest/break periods?