The future of F1 is here - The 2026 FIA Formula 1 Technical Regulations will be setting a new blueprint, more competitive, safer and more sustainable.The FIA...
That they lowered the fuel flow limit instead of eliminating it is a disappointment. Road relevance has been replaced by greenwashing relevance. But the active aero is an interesting choice.
Oh, I see what you mean about going all-electric. I think there are other reasons why they can’t do that. Formula E cars would be completely unable to complete anything like an F1 race. We’d need some revolutionary new storage tech for that to happen.
I’m of the opinion that the fuel flow limit was a bad idea from the start. Fuel efficiency is a worthy engineering goal even if its relevance to “sustainability” is pretty negligable, but restricting the total amount used and basically anything else makes more sense to me rather than constraining the instantaneous fuel flow rate. But I suppose it’s seen as a cost-cutting measure: Low-revving engines are less likely to blow up.
restricting the total amount used and basically anything else makes more sense
Oh you meant eliminate the flow limit, I thought you meant eliminate the fuel itself. And I agree (with the caveat you said, also limiting the total amount).
That they lowered the fuel flow limit instead of eliminating it is a disappointment. Road relevance has been replaced by greenwashing relevance. But the active aero is an interesting choice.
That won’t happen for 15 years at least, only Formula E can be fully electric.
https://www.autoweek.com/racing/more-racing/a44319865/formula-e-ceo-jeff-dodds-sees-sustainable-future-for-electric-racing-series/
Oh, I see what you mean about going all-electric. I think there are other reasons why they can’t do that. Formula E cars would be completely unable to complete anything like an F1 race. We’d need some revolutionary new storage tech for that to happen.
I’m of the opinion that the fuel flow limit was a bad idea from the start. Fuel efficiency is a worthy engineering goal even if its relevance to “sustainability” is pretty negligable, but restricting the total amount used and basically anything else makes more sense to me rather than constraining the instantaneous fuel flow rate. But I suppose it’s seen as a cost-cutting measure: Low-revving engines are less likely to blow up.
Oh you meant eliminate the flow limit, I thought you meant eliminate the fuel itself. And I agree (with the caveat you said, also limiting the total amount).