
Brilliant. They've combined the 1 allowable tension stay and 1 allowable brace for the floor board & floor foot area, which of each can only be single-section, into a two-element stay.AR3-GP wrote: ↑29 Jan 2026, 07:42Multi-element bargeboard strut.
https://i.postimg.cc/8CYxdncD/image.png


Great pics, thank you.
The floor foot stay cannot be attached to the board, so the arrangement above would not be legal if one element was defined as floor foot stay. The board brace can be multi-element as it is exempt from C3.2.4.vorticism wrote: ↑30 Jan 2026, 16:42Brilliant. They've combined the 1 allowable tension stay and 1 allowable brace for the floor board & floor foot area, which of each can only be single-section, into a two-element stay.AR3-GP wrote: ↑29 Jan 2026, 07:42Multi-element bargeboard strut.
https://i.postimg.cc/8CYxdncD/image.png
Excellent. You’ve reminded me how important the section headers are. Global rules sometimes followed by exemptions. I would have assumed, given how simple the tension stays are, that the board brace would have been demanded simple. The RW endplate braces must be single section, f.e. I was wrong in a second way as well--if it was 1/2 a stay, they have to be circular.john downforce wrote: ↑31 Jan 2026, 18:41The floor foot stay cannot be attached to the board, so the arrangement above would not be legal if one element was defined as floor foot stay. The board brace can be multi-element as it is exempt from C3.2.4.vorticism wrote: ↑30 Jan 2026, 16:42Brilliant. They've combined the 1 allowable tension stay and 1 allowable brace for the floor board & floor foot area, which of each can only be single-section, into a two-element stay.AR3-GP wrote: ↑29 Jan 2026, 07:42Multi-element bargeboard strut.
https://i.postimg.cc/8CYxdncD/image.png

Almost certainly cameras to monitor the SLM actuators during testing. They’ll be housed such to create as small an impact on the flow down the car as possible. Hence the housingMIKEY_! wrote: ↑07 Feb 2026, 22:31Interesting "bull horn"devices on the nose. I'm not sure what to make of them, their rounded shape makes me think they're sensors (e.g. for observing front wing actuator behaviour) rather than aero devices, but they are quite well integrated so not sure. Pic stolen from Matthew Sommerfield's substack.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_ ... 7x844.jpeg
Mercedes alsoqoochet wrote: ↑13 Feb 2026, 16:42RB seems to be the only few teams that middle part of the front wing is not movable.
https://ibb.co/xSTdm2C3
For Mercedes the whole wing moves. Even the part under the nosecone.AR3-GP wrote: ↑13 Feb 2026, 19:44Mercedes alsoqoochet wrote: ↑13 Feb 2026, 16:42RB seems to be the only few teams that middle part of the front wing is not movable.
https://ibb.co/xSTdm2C3
I don't see the center portion in that video so it's not clear. It's possible that it is now mobile and was not in barcelona. A lot of teams didn't have the full active aero in Barcelona (Audi, Aston Martin, among others, maybe Mercedes also).mzso wrote: ↑13 Feb 2026, 22:30Well, here you can clearly see it popping back up between the nose attachments: https://youtu.be/UeqOpme6Z3M?t=86
The tip cover the center most bit. But what's visible does not agree with that drawing.

