Temporada F1 2026 🏎

[llumia]

Carlos Sainz da una vuelta al Madring.


https://x.com/F1/status/2055604175073927344?s=20

En la curva La Monumental, parece que vas a despegar hacia el cielo.

[llumia]

Mucho se habla de posibles destinos para C. Horner, en el caso que vuelva a la F1, ahora suena con fuerza el equipo chino BYD que podría llagar al Gran Circo:

Horner in talks over new BYD F1 team entry

Former Red Bull boss Christian Horner's return to Formula 1 could be as the head of a 12th team entry with Chinese car manufacturer BYD, with talks on a potential tie-up ongoing.

In the wake of his surprise dismissal from Red Bull in the middle of last year, Horner has been evaluating his options to make an F1 comeback, with it clear he feels he has unfinished business in grand prix racing.

Early interest from Aston Martin did not get as far as a deal, while most recently he has been linked with a bid to purchase the 24% stake in Alpine that American investment group Otro Capital is looking to offload.

But while a decision on that is set to be made in the next few weeks - with Horner facing a notable rival bid from Mercedes - another possibility for him has now emerged.

That could be with Chinese car manufacturer BYD, which specialises in electric and hybrid vehicles, and has long been interested in a possible future entry into F1.

It has emerged that during a visit by Horner to the south of France last week, where he also attended the Formula E race in Monaco, he spent time with BYD during a special activation event it held at the Cannes Film Festival.

During that event, it is understood Horner met and spoke with Stella Li, BYD's executive vice president, to discuss thoughts on F1 and scope for a potential partnership. The pair of them also posed for photographs together.

While it is understood that discussions did not get as far as green lighting the F1 project, sources suggest that the negotiations were positive and that there is serious potential to move the plans forward.

The timing of these talks is interesting because Horner is now a free agent to return to work for an F1 team or project, following the expiration of a non-compete clause that was agreed as part of his Red Bull severance package.

BYD has made no secret that it is actively exploring its options in F1, with Li having revealed earlier this year that she discussed ideas with F1 CEO Stefano Domenicali at the Chinese Grand Prix.

Speaking to Italian publication SportMediaset in the wake of those talks, she said: "I like Formula 1 because it's about passion, culture and people dream of being in Formula 1...it's something we're discussing. It's a real opportunity to test our technology."

A tie-up with BYD, which clearly has the funding necessary to invest heavily in F1, would be a perfect solution for Horner, who is understood to have no interest in just returning to F1 as team principal.

He wants to either have a financial stake in a team or be in control of things to the same extent that he was at Red Bull, where he was CEO as well as team boss.

A BYD F1 team would offer Horner the chance to build a project from scratch and shape it in the best way possible, as opposed to buying into a current operation such as Alpine which has other major shareholders and where control would be much more difficult.

While BYD has been linked to Alpine in recent weeks, it would only use an existing F1 team as its way in if 100% ownership was on offer. It is understood that its preference is to set up a project from scratch as a 12th entry.

Getting a start-up onto the grid is something that would take time, with the first hurdle being to get F1 to open up the entry process once again as it had to do for Cadillac.

But FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem has long been clear that he thinks grand prix racing would be boosted by the presence of a Chinese car manufacturer on the grid so would likely be supportive of doing what was necessary to open the door for BYD.

Speaking last year, Ben Sulayem said: "If there is a Chinese [manufacturer interested], and I will speak on behalf of FOM, they will agree to that, because it is about sustaining the business."

"If there is a team from China, let's say, and FOM approved it, and I am 100% they will approve it, wouldn't it make more money with China coming in? I believe, yes."


https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/horner-in-talks-over-new-byd-f1-team-entry/

[llumia]

En esto, estoy con Vasseur. Pide aclaración a la FIA, le responden que ".... se tienen que adaptar los autos a las normas y no las normas a los autos". Siguen al pie de la letra ese mandato.

Observan que un "turbo" de menor tamaño les puede dar una ventaja competitiva en la salida, a costa de perder rendimiento en la banda alta de revoluciones.

La mayoría de los equipos no sigue esa ruta, y cuando ven su "inferioridad", protestan, utilizando el comodín de la "seguridad".

La Federación acepta la queja  y modifica las normas una vez más y la Scuderia que hizo las cosas "por el libro", a tragar y perder su ventaja en las salidas, justamente ganada.

En el caso de la Scuderia, me recuerda a la temporada 2013, después de aquel GP celebrado en Montmeló, en la que vencieron con una estrategia a 4 paradas!!!!

El equipo Red Bull F1, uno de los grandes perjudicados, comenzó a protestar, utilizando a la prensa inglesa, aduciendo que las carreras eran muy difíciles de seguir por su complejidad.

La FIA, en principio, no daba el brazo a torcer, hasta que llegó el GP de Gran Bretaña, en el circuito de Silverstone, una plaza perfecta para asestar el golpe definitivo.

Pista muy exigente para los neumáticos y las recomendaciones del suministrador de neumáticos que se pasan por el forro, con el resultado de varias ruedas sufriendo reventones. En ese momento, ya se podía emplear el comodín de la "seguridad", la FIA, ya no tuvo más remedio que doblar el brazo.

SV, piloto de Red Bull, arrasa. Si todo se hubiera hecho por el libro, creo que FA y KR le podían haber puesto las cosas más difíciles.

The 'unfair' F1 safety net that's trapped Ferrari

Ferrari might still have the best starts in Formula 1, but it is fair to say that team boss Fred Vasseur is annoyed by how its advantage has been eroded by an outcome that he maintains was "unfair".

In fact, in a year where there has been plenty of political manoeuvring among teams over rule changes, including relating to compression ratios and energy management, this is the aspect that stands out to him as the most unsatisfactory.

"The start is by far the biggest," says Vasseur.

The brilliant getaways enjoyed by Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton so far this year have their foundation in a deliberate design choice Ferrari made in opting for a smaller turbo.


Aware of how challenging the race starts could be for the 2026 cars that had lost extra electrical assistance from the MGU-H to spool up the turbo, Ferrari chose to take a hit on sacrificing top end power in favour of better launches.


This was because, having gone to the FIA a year ago to explain the challenges and potential safety risks that were in play with the way the regulations had been framed, it was given a clear message.

It was up to teams to design their cars around the rules; not for the rules to be adjusted to fit around the cars.

Taking that viewpoint on board, Ferrari duly went away and weighed up that the compromise on going for the smaller turbo was worth it – as the downside of a bigger turbo would be very tricky starts.

"The trade-off is do we want to make one tenth of a second [in lap time] or do we want to lose five positions at the start," said Vasseur in an exclusive interview with The Race.

"If you ask the engineers they say, okay, let's have a good start."

It was when rivals found out in pre-season testing just how difficult the starts were going to be – and how big the dangers were of them going catastrophically wrong – pressure was put on the FIA to take action.

This resulted in the new extended pre-light procedure, which gives all drivers more time to spool up their turbos, as well as plenty of extra practice launches.

The changes that arrived for the Australian Grand Prix with the extra blue light time did their job in avoiding the risks of a start line pile-up (although Liam Lawson and Franco Colapinto came very close), and did not stop Ferrari leading into Turn 1.

In fact, Ferrari has maintained its start brilliance until now - although the scale of its advantage has been cut back significantly.

From Vasseur's perspective, there are some fundamentals to the situation that he thinks did not play out in the right way.

"Imagine without the blue light [the new pre-start light which gives drivers time to spool up their turbo before the start sequence], some cars would be still on the grid in China," smiled Vasseur.

"You can put on the table the safety grounds, and it's the right of the FIA and I have just to accept. But at the end, I think it's also a bit unfair on us.

"I went to the FIA one year ago, and we spoke about this. We spoke about this in SAC (Sporting Advisory Committee), we spoke about this in the PUAC (Power Unit Advisory Committee).

"And I really appreciated the answer from the FIA [that] you have to design the car for the regulations, not the regulations for your car. I think this is a very good approach.

"So then to have half of the grid, 40% of the grid complaining, that it's mega dangerous and so on. Politically [it] was well played but not very fair."

What Vasseur is referring to is how key players among the drivers and team bosses ramped up the safety risks to such an extent that the FIA could not ignore taking action.

Grand Prix Drivers' Association (GPDA) director George Russell even went public at the Chinese Grand Prix and suggested that Ferrari was being "selfish" and blocking moves to alter start procedures more.

Vasseur is not the sort of person who likes to spend time engaged in wars of words, so he quickly drew a line under things back in Shanghai in saying that what was done was done.

Asked on reflection if he regretted not speaking out more on the topic and not accepting the changes, Vasseur says that the reality was that Ferrari's hands were tied.

The FIA used its safety card to make the tweaks, so Ferrari could do nothing other than be resigned to it.

"It was a safety ground. I don't have to accept," Vasseur said. "It was a decision based on safety grounds. It's up to them. Even if everybody is against, they can decide."

What makes Vasseur most twitchy about the starts approach is that it is not a topic that relates to a clever interpretation of a loophole – such as what happened with the compression ratio issue surrounding Mercedes.

Instead, this was about a fundamental choice made to adapt rules around behaviours that teams had not taken into account when finalising their designs for 2026.

"It was a bit harsh for us," Vasseur added. "I understand what they did for safety grounds, but the other option would have been to ask them [the other cars] to start from the pitlane if they think it was not safe.

"For us it's also a choice that we made. We developed an engine with a criteria and somehow they changed the rule at the last minute."

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/the-unfair-f1-safety-net-thats-trapped-ferrari/


 

[LaraCroft]

Carlos Sainz da una vuelta al Madring.


https://x.com/F1/status/2055604175073927344?s=20

En la curva La Monumental, parece que vas a despegar hacia el cielo.

A mí me ha recordado a los óvalos de la NASCAR pero en pequeña escala con lo cual lo hace más inclinado pero mola mucho.  

[GoVal]

Entre los últimos artículos de Autosport Plus publicados, hay Luis García Abad habla sobre el Madring, aunque no cuenta mucho, y otro sobre el ADUO.

Como siempre, está en el hilo de lectura motorizada.

[llumia]

No es por malmeter, pero me resulta curioso que LGA (Luis García Abad), esté al frente del Madring y FA se haya "autopostulado", como embajador del Circuit de Catalunya

[llumia]

Every 2026 circuit has exposed a new Aston Martin weakness

Fernando Alonso thinks nothing positive came out of Aston Martin's best result of the year in Monaco - with the weekend exposing another "chronic" weakness in its car.

Aston Martin had hoped that the tight and twisty nature of the Monte Carlo street circuit would give it an opportunity to do better, as it would not be held back by a lack of power from its Honda engine.

However, the team was given a reality check about the state of its current package as Alonso and team-mate Lance Stroll both struggled with gearbox downshift issues, a lack of drivability and handling woes.

The pair qualified on the back row before Alonso managed to push his way forward in the race and finish 11th on the road – prior to Sergio Perez's post-race penalty for being out of his grid position.

That left Alonso 10th in the classification to secure his and Aston Martin's first point of the 2026 campaign.

Speaking before the confirmation of Perez's drop, Alonso was clear though that there was little reason to be happy about how things had gone over the weekend.

He suggested that Monaco had been a case of another wake-up call for Aston Martin that its issues were about far more than just its power unit.

"Zero positives from this weekend," explained Alonso. "We've been racing in very different circuits so far this year. All of them were clear for us in terms of understanding some of our weaknesses.

"In Australia, we found our engine was very down. In China, we found our energy was very down. In Monaco, we found our chassis is down. In Miami, we found that our gearbox was very bad. I think every circuit exposed some of our weaknesses in the car.

"But the good thing is that that is a very good understanding on what action is needed in each of the areas."

A fresh chronic issue

With Monaco not being such a power-sensitive circuit, Aston Martin ending up at the back of the grid was proof of just how much room for improvement it needs to find with its chassis too.

Things were not helped by the emergence of a balance problem that Alonso and Stroll were exposed to in the low-speed corners.

Aston Martin ambassador Pedro de la Rosa revealed the team had been caught by surprise by just how bad things were.

"We were expecting to be a bit better here, but we found a very, very severe mid-corner understeer in the low-speed," he said.

"The team has tried to cure [it], making all possible changes on set-up, but it is something more fundamental than the set-up change. We didn't experience this understeer as bad as it has been here in any other race, so that has caught us out."

While alert that the understeer problem could manifest itself in the future, de la Rosa had some hope that this was something isolated to Monaco's unique characteristics.

"It's something that, as we haven't seen in circuits that are very different to Monaco, we remain confident [it won't return]," he said.

"But we should first of all analyse all the data, and if we find again this problem then we will have more tools actually to work on them.

"I would be surprised if we find this level of chronic mid-corner understeer in any other track, because there are no tracks like Monaco, and also this year the soft tyre has been even pretty hard for this circuit."

Waiting on upgrades

Aston Martin has elected to hold fire on introducing any major upgrades until engine partner Honda is ready to introduce developments that can bring a much-needed step forward on the power front.

Alonso said that all the issues that had been exposed so far were being worked on, so it was just a case of waiting for the fixes to arrive.

"For the second part of the year, the package that we try to bring all at once is tackling all those problems individually," he said.

"I have full faith and trust on the team, because our impression and our feeling is that that [upgraded] car will change dramatically what we are facing now. We just need to wait another four or five races of painful results."

De la Rosa was hopeful that when the upgraded car arrived it would bring a decent step forward.

"We expect to have more grip and more power," he said. "F1 is about physics. It's not that complicated, in a way. To get that is complicated, but actually what you need is simple."

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/fernando-alonso-aston-martin-f1-monaco-weakness-chassis/

[llumia]

How Russell's driving style is feeding into 2026 struggles

George Russell's claim that a driving style difference is at the heart of his increasing struggles relative to Mercedes Formula 1 team-mate Kimi Antonelli points in a clear direction: tyres.

Russell alluded to that himself. He talked about "something in my driving style that's not helping the car at the moment", in contrast to "playing into [Antonelli's] hands perfectly well", adding that "the difference is how we're driving has such an impact on the tyres". So what does he mean?

Traditionally, Russell's technique is one of high-commitment smoothness. He's tended towards the 'don't brake later, brake less' style, braking early, stabilising the car and carrying tremendous speed into the corner. Doing that - keeping the platform relatively stable while still being able to deal with instability on turn-in and keeping up the momentum - worked spectacularly with the ground-effect era machinery, and the generation before that.

Typically, his set-up focus was ensuring he had the through-corner balance he wanted. The initial steering is progressive, loading the car up, sometimes with a secondary movement to refine the entry phase as the speed comes down. After that, the mid-corner usually takes care of itself as he likes to use the responsiveness of the car to set up the rotation, although if he carries too much speed in he will often correct mid-corner.

When that is working, he carries decent speed but usually prodigious exit speed. Trading off a little mid-corner speed for strong exits has been part of his evolution during the Mercedes years. At his best - as he consistently was last year - he's deceptively fast, as economy and smoothness should not be mistaken for conservatism.

One area where his way of driving might not play to the 2026 cars is that he's sometimes struggled a little on lower-grip tracks. You could say he has a touch of the Oscar Piastri in terms of not being at his best when having to deal with microslides when the car is constantly moving about.

He's not a high-sensitivity driver in terms of steering inputs, or one who uses large amounts of braking/steering overlap, which often works best when the car is constantly having these tiny slides on lower-grip surfaces. High-commitment into a corner is a strength, but if the confidence isn't there then he struggles with that. His Miami struggles showcased that, while it's reasonable to assume that the lower-downforce 2026 cars mean that he's having to deal with more microslides than before.

However, anyone watching Russell in Monaco might not have recognised him. He was being the more spectacular, and not in a good way, of the Mercedes drivers with the car moving around, more moments when the rear steps out, and generally working harder at the wheel.

The lower downforce plays a part in that, but so too does the way he loads the tyres, which has also made it harder for him to get the Pirellis in the right window over a lap. In fact, being not completely at ease with these small slides can also compromise your tyre management.

ussell may be smooth, but the peak loads he puts through the tyre are often higher than many others. In that turn-in phase, he asks a lot of the rears in particular. When the front tyres aren't up to temperature, he will struggle, and there were times when that was a problem during the Monaco weekend and throughout the Canada weekend.

However, get the fronts in, as he appeared to do for his fastest qualifying lap in Monaco when he was actually marginally faster than Antonelli through Ste Devote but then lost time elsewhere, and he can overload the rears as a result. And with a little less downforce at the rear, that means more sliding, which costs him time, and overheating, which costs even more.

The shorthand characterisation of Antonelli's driving style is that he's aggressive, and it's a fair one. The first time I had the chance to watch him trackside for an extended period of time in pre-season testing in Bahrain last year (he'd made a good impression from the first chicane at Monza the previous season but only came past quickly twice before his crash) that was clear.

But while his inputs are plentiful, they are also usually subtle and precise. This is not ragged, reactive aggression, but all about carrying speed through the ability to make constant tiny corrections - ideal for dealing with microslides and well-suited to getting the best out of the low-downforce cars. He's confident to commit even when he's not certain about the grip and has the sensitivity to feel the car through the corner and adjust accordingly.

That doesn't mean that the change in cars has turned him from a good driver into a great one. Last year, he was making progress rapidly but his mid-season slump was triggered by the Mercedes development misstep with a rear suspension modification that was later binned.

Antonelli's own estimation was that this cost him three months, and even then late in the season he put in a strong performance throughout the Interlagos weekend, which was the first when he was conclusively faster than his team-mate throughout. Yes, Russell took his first win at Interlagos in 2022, but it's one of his weaker tracks. And Antonelli's strengths shone through.

Imagine where he'd have got to last year without those wasted months; map that onto the step he's made this year and it all makes more sense.

And when it comes to the tyres, which Antonelli managed to get in a good window throughout his Monaco pole lap - not fastest in any sector, but second quickest in all three - his style works well. His peak loads don't have so high a ceiling, working with the car rather than trying to dominate it as Russell does at corner entry, but his more aggressive approach can also help to energise the front tyres when they need it without necessarily paying the price with the rears as Russell does.

So does this mean Antonelli has won the battle and Russell is doomed to number two status? Not necessarily. Antonelli is a mightily quick driver, and it's very possible he might have a pace ceiling that's higher than that of Russell. But that's not been conclusively proven yet.

The change of regulations hasn't made Antonelli a faster driver fundamentally, as there's a confluence of factors that mean he was always going to be stronger this year and a big threat to Russell even if the regulations hadn't changed. But it's clear Russell has identified where he's lacking, which is key if he's to have any chance of fighting back.

What's critical is that Russell does not convince himself the prevailing conditions are tipping the scales in Antonelli's favour, or that there's favouritism in the team. He wants to be world champion, and to do that you will need to be adaptable and face up to the challenge of other outstanding drivers.

But he must also not attempt to rewire himself or exaggerate the challenge. He's been fast in these cars, he found a way in both qualifying sessions in Montreal to eclipse Antonelli, and there has also been misfortune this season that has exaggerated the points gap (which is 68 points as it stands). However, the fact remains that in both Miami and Monaco, Antonelli was by a convincing margin the stronger Mercedes driver.

Russell must remember his strengths, work to get the car and the tyres in the window he wants and then, just as he has been consistently through his F1 career, he will be extremely quick. It's a case of small changes and chipping away at the weaknesses, and you could argue that the high-speed-aero-dependent and flowing sweeps of Barcelona this weekend are the ideal place to get back to his best.

The first challenge is to do that, because if he doesn't soon then his title challenge will wilt. The second challenge is Antonelli, because even for Russell at his best he will be a handful.

Russell, and the watching world, would do well not to underestimate both how good Antonelli already is and the potential that remains to be fulfilled. His first season may not have been the great rookie campaign many expected, but we're seeing the real Antonelli in the second - and he's only getting stronger.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/george-russell-driving-style-f1-2026-struggles-kimi-antonelli/

[llumia]

F1's 2027 engine rule compromise revealed

Formula 1 will introduce a two-step regulation change across 2027 and 2028 to reduce the role of electrical power in F1 engines.

There's long been a consensus that further, more substantial changes were going to be needed for the much-criticised 2026 rules, after an initial batch of tweaks were introduced earlier this year.

The main question was, given that all manufacturers have different interests, how strong a package of changes could be agreed on, with at least four of the six engine manufacturers needing to agree on any changes to the 2026 power unit rules.

The FIA said, "the proposed changes are intended to address issues related to energy management and fuel energy flow characteristics and make qualifying more flat-out while not impacting the positive and exciting racing generated by the new regulations".

The headline item is the "staged rebalancing" of the internal combustion engine and energy recovery system split, moving away from the initial 50/50 split that underpinned this ruleset.

In reality, that split is 53/47 in favour of the internal combustion engine right now, but the FIA plans to move that to 58/42 for 2027 and 60/40 for 2028.



It will achieve that by upping the max power of the internal combustion engine from 400kW to 420kW for 2027 and up to 450kW for 2028.

This will work alongside an increase to the fuel flow, 5% for 2027 and 13% for 2028.

That gradual change for 2027 may reduce the need for hardware changes to be made to these expensive and complex engines - a key bone of contention for some manufacturers including Audi, which had just invested in a complicated, brand-new engine for the first time.

It's not as fast a change as the likes of Mercedes would have liked (it would have preferred the 50kW reduction for 2027, rather than just 20kW), but it's part of the compromised package needed to get approval.

The max overtake mode power will remain at 350kW, but the max harvesting power will increase to 375kW in 2027 and 400kW from 2028, from its current 350kW level.

The FIA says "it will now expedite the formal approval process to provide all parties with early clarity and sufficient time to adapt to the revised requirements".

The proposed changes are subject to approval by the World Motorsport Council at its next meeting in Macau on June 23.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/f1-engine-rule-changes-2027-2028/

[GoVal]

No es por malmeter, pero me resulta curioso que LGA (Luis García Abad), esté al frente del Madring y FA se haya "autopostulado", como embajador del Circuit de Catalunya

A mi también me llamó la atención. De hecho no tenía ni idea de que Luis estaba implicado en el Madring  .

[McHouserphy]

The full Pirelli range for Spielberg and Silverstone

[GoVal]

nicolas carpentiers @carpentiers_f1 · 47min

All floor fences of the 2026 #F1 cars. Floor fences direct airflow outward, deflecting front-wheel turbulence away from the underfloor. #AlpineF1 #AstonMartinF1 #AudiF1 #CadillacF1 #FerrariF1 #HaasF1 #McLarenF1 #MercedesF1 #RacingBulls #RedBullF1 (🧐)  #WilliamsF1 #techF1