2026 car comparisons

[Frank73]

Correct my thinking if I’m wrong about this 180-degree rear wing, guys.
We have one wing, and whether it opens normally or in reverse (like what Ferrari did today), I assume the drag remains the same.

When it opens normally, the air passes through, and because it is a wing and not completely flat, the air is directed slightly upward, which pressures the car down.
However, when it opens and rotates 180 degrees, the air is directed downward. This forces the airflow hitting the rear overall air that's coming to the back of the car into a flatter trajectory, causing the air to accelerate. Another gain is that since the car is lifted slightly, the team can run a softer suspension. This would provide better braking and more grip in all corners, especially the slow ones, and lead to better overall tire management.
Those are just my thoughts, but as an armchair old-fart I can’t exactly back them up aerodynamically!

Edit: @GrizzleBoy you are in my thoughts

Motorsport.it claims it serves two purposes: 1)making the wing stall cleaning the wake; 2)supporting first part of braking
via a parachute-like aerobrake. They also say solution is still in the experimental phase and for some time it will not be mounted again. They also report rumors of other teams already looking at it in the CFD.

[venkyhere]

People are forgetting the most basic reason for this inverted wing. Vortices. Opposite rotating vortices cancel

Are you sure ? Because to my understanding, when the two concave surfaces are face to face (concave roof and concave floor), the tip votices will both rotate inside-to-outside of the wing structure, and re-inforce each other

[Brahmal]

2)supporting first part of braking via a parachute-like aerobrake.

If true that is some ballsy engineering!

[dialtone]

People are forgetting the most basic reason for this inverted wing. Vortices. Opposite rotating vortices cancel

Are you sure ? Because to my understanding, when the two concave surfaces are face to face (roof and floor), the tip votices will both rotate inside-to-outside of the wing structure, and re-inforce each other

I think it’s all a lot simpler. The slot size is up to max with the wing inverted. The bigger slot offers less drag as air isn’t stalling in front there.

The size of that normal drs slot is tiny on high df circuits when open.

[Gridlock]

They also report rumors of other teams already looking at it in the CFD.

Ant Davidson on Sky said other teams had told him they had looked at this concept previously too, it hasn't come from nowhere to the field.

[NoDivergence]

People are forgetting the most basic reason for this inverted wing. Vortices. Opposite rotating vortices cancel

Are you sure ? Because to my understanding, when the two concave surfaces are face to face (concave roof and concave floor), the tip votices will both rotate inside-to-outside of the wing structure, and re-inforce each other

Two lifting wings (aka biplane) reinforce the vortex as it merges. Think of it more as the direction of rotation canceling. The lifting wing has a counterclockwise vortex rotation
and the downforce wing is clockwise, when looking from the front

[void]

Why would that matter? The drag has already been induced.

? What do you mean. The flap is behind the main element. You are literally mitigating the vortex growth off the main plane.

Have you seen the vortex off a plane's wingtips? It propagates for hundreds of meters

But that vortex has no impact on the car anymore. The drag from the vortex generation has already happened. Trying to add a counter rotating vortex just adds more drag.

How this no vortex area impacts on a following car?

[Owen.C93]

? What do you mean. The flap is behind the main element. You are literally mitigating the vortex growth off the main plane.

Have you seen the vortex off a plane's wingtips? It propagates for hundreds of meters

But that vortex has no impact on the car anymore. The drag from the vortex generation has already happened. Trying to add a counter rotating vortex just adds more drag.

That is not how aero and induced drag works. Everything downstream affects upstream and vice versa.

Same idea, just done with a prop

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... nal_Layout

That’s discussing modifying the upstream to reduce downstream drag. I don’t see anything in there which suggests the wing tip vortex is reducing drag by altering the vortex of the propeller.

[johnnycesup]

That’s discussing modifying the upstream to reduce downstream drag. I don’t see anything in there which suggests the wing tip vortex is reducing drag by altering the vortex of the propeller.

Speaking theoretically, in a flow below the speed of sound (which is propagation speed for mechanical waves in a particular medium), what happens downstream affects what happens upstream.

A good example is in NASCAR, when a car is travelling in clean air with another car close behind, it's less draggy that it would have been had it been travelling alone (of course the car drafting gets an even bigger drag reduction). Check out Table 1 at:

https://www.simscale.com/blog/drafting- ... in-racing/

[bluechris]

I do not think this changes downforce so much that they will run different suspension... downforce wise this will be a very small change.
However I think the upper rotated wing will affect the lower (even if it is behind) that it stalls more. The two together probably creates a flow that will make both planes lot less draggy, and this might be the main function. So it is not separately the upper plane that we shall think about.
Add to this, that such a wing can be profiled designed to enhance this effect. This will not be just a regular shaped wing which has a rotating upper plane.

This is true about the stall and maybe it is like that but we don't know which wing from the two have the bigger impact. If the upper wins, the the air goes downwards, if the bottom then the air goes upwards. If the 1st is the case then maybe what i said can work for the suspension or it's too minimal the uplift to make them do changes in suspension.
Either way it's very advanced aero behavior for us to prove anything.

I just thought something else, if you send the air down, you are eliminating the drag of the following car that now will get more air head on when it follows. Maybe the rear wing is the 70-80% of the overall air that a car sends behind but it's something isn't it? I mean it's a different case when you follow to receive let's say for example 80% air from the front car and totally different when you get 90%

All this numbers are for examples now, i don't have a clue of the real percentages.

This thing that Ferrari did is pretty impressive and not so simple to understand.

[ispano6]

People are forgetting the most basic reason for this inverted wing. Vortices. Opposite rotating vortices cancel

Why would that matter? The drag has already been induced.

? What do you mean. The flap is behind the main element. You are literally mitigating the vortex growth off the main plane.

Have you seen the vortex off a plane's wingtips? It propagates for hundreds of meters

Bingo, the inverted shape more or less creates an annular or "ring" wing. I mentioned this idea a few years ago here and it looks like someone at Ferrari is pretty aeronaughty

[mzso]

Correct my thinking if I’m wrong about this 180-degree rear wing, guys.
We have one wing, and whether it opens normally or in reverse (like what Ferrari did today), I assume the drag remains the same.

If it opens normally, drag definitely is reduces. That's what the DRS was all about.

[sucof]

but instead you now have 2 bulky actuators, on on each side of the wing; so which scenario is better?

Intuitively, I’d say that two bulges in structures that are already present are more efficient than a third structure... but I also know that aerodynamics is often counter-intuitive.

This was an option at the beginning of the DRS area as well. This solution is just heavier and have more complication.
I might be wrong but I remember teams trying it back then, before everyone converged to use the similar center solution.

[NoDivergence]

But that vortex has no impact on the car anymore. The drag from the vortex generation has already happened. Trying to add a counter rotating vortex just adds more drag.

That is not how aero and induced drag works. Everything downstream affects upstream and vice versa.

Same idea, just done with a prop

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... nal_Layout

That’s discussing modifying the upstream to reduce downstream drag. I don’t see anything in there which suggests the wing tip vortex is reducing drag by altering the vortex of the propeller.

They work together as a system, not independently... As I said, what happens downstream affects upstream and vice versa. Or did you not ever learn about Kutta Joukowski?

Of course the wing tip vortex is reducing the prop vortex. They are literally interacting and reducing each other. The cumulative net vortex is much lower strength, hence lower induced drag

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 23-00593-5

This did the testing both ways and pusher prop, although less efficient than tractor, had nearly the same L/D, and far higher than when the tractor prop rotated (the wrong way). Indicating vortex management indeed has significant effects on system drag and we know.
https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=1 ... ACGAIgAigC

[SiLo]

The size of that normal drs slot is tiny on high df circuits when open.

But the wings are already fairly backed off no? Is this an issue any more?