2026 car comparisons

[dialtone]

It's clear that it's intended for specific races. Remember that Ferrari goes all out to win Monza every year. We will see this wing there, las vegas, Baku, China.

On the contrary, if the theory for how it works is true this is more useful in high DF races rather than low DF.

Plus if this gains 5-7kph, they need every single one of them in every race to counter the illegal engine.

1) There's no longer a distinction between high and low downforce races because of the active aero and the reduced size of the rear wing box. All races will have high downforce in cornering mode and use the active aero on the straights.

2) The real distinction now will be circuits with long straights and circuits with short straights. The wing takes a longer time to re-attach the airflow when it closes so driver has to disable it earlier or brake earlier and more gradually. That would be a big hindrance on circuits with many shorter straights like Monaco, Singapore, Japan, etc. The best case for this wing is circuits with very long straights where they gain so much time in the straight that braking slightly earlier doesn't matter.

No, I very much disagree.

1) I think you certainly still look for efficiency between high speed corners, low speed corners and 90 deg corners or city circuits. I also wrote that there's less distinction between tracks based on straights (I actually think in reply to you somewhere else in the forum), but that doesn't mean that teams will go through the season with a single wing.

This is now also married with teams needing to harvest in the corner, and a bigger wing all the time is going to reduce the harvested energy.

2) I don't think this matters much in the end, they can probably optimize the mechanism to reduce the rotation time significantly, say make it 0.3 or even 0.25s. The way these cars accelerate, they are at top speed halfway through the bahrain straight, most straights will look short to their acceleration.

4-7kph higher speed as well is worth every penny to try and fix the braking part.

Most importantly anyway the mechanism works with decent camber on the wing, without that camber it won't work as well, nobody is going to have huge camber in Spa, Monza or Silverstone and have to lose battery power to fight the wing drag through fast corners when a smaller wing will work fine anyway.

Anyway we'll see what happens.

[AR3-GP]

There was clearly a lot of time and effort spent on this wing design. For it to be discarded, or only used on certain circuits, in this cost-cap era would have to be seen as a huge screw-up!

Teams regularly developed track specific wings and cooling packages in the previous regulations.

[Andi76]

I found an interesting 2D analysis of Ferrari's "upside-down" wing by Fluid Experts. On the one hand, you can see the normal, closed wing, the traditional approach of simply lowering a wing flap, and Ferrari's upside-down innovation.

Typically, a "DRS-open" configuration reduces the angle of attack of the flap to minimize the front surface area. This results in a significant loss of downforce, but the undersides of the wings still maintain low pressure. Since the wing continues to act as a downforce generator, it remains loaded by the induced drag—the physical "tax" paid for generating aerodynamic load. Essentially, the car continues to fight against its own wings even when they are "open."

Ferrari's "upside-down" innovation represents a fundamental departure from this logic. Instead of simply reducing the angle, the team experimented with rotating the flaps well beyond the horizontal plane – to angles of almost 270°. This maneuver effectively reverses the pressure gradient of the entire assembly. By flipping the flap to an extreme angle, the surface that normally creates negative pressure now becomes a high-pressure zone. This drastic change significantly reduces the suction on the main surface and shifts the wing from a state of high downforce to a state where it is overall unloaded. In some scenarios, the wing can even achieve a state of lift.

The strategic advantage here lies in the physics of induced drag, which is proportional to the square of the lift coefficient (C_z^2). By reducing the aerodynamic load to almost zero – or even to positive lift – the induced drag is almost completely eliminated, resulting in enormous speed gains that cannot be achieved with a conventional DRS. Furthermore, this "stall" effect is not limited to the wing itself. The resulting increase in pressure under the tilted flaps and the unfavorable gradient on the main surface can be used to specifically disrupt the performance of the diffuser.

By "switching off" the suction effect of the underbody on long straights, Ferrari achieves a secondary, massive reduction in the overall drag of the car. Of course, this simple 2D model cannot fully account for 3D complexities such as wing tip vortices, but the underlying principle is clear: Ferrari no longer just "opens" the wing, but aerodynamically "unlocks" the entire car to dominate the straights.

I think this 2D simulation illustrates this really clever and innovative idea interestingly. It's that kind of creative solution whose signature seems very familiar to me, and I can guess where it comes from and who came up with it.

[Andi76]

One potential downside to this wing is that reducing the downforce at the rear too much could increase the tire wear on the straights. The PU has a lot of torque. You need some downforce to stop the rear wheels from slipping.

Yes and no, I would say. You're right—even on a straight line, low downforce is often more treacherous for the tread, as the wheels "dance." High downforce is more stable, but it puts so much structural stress on the tire that it can be damaged by the sheer heat. So low downforce on the straight/high downforce on the straight - something happens with the tyre one way or the other and we are, as always, talking about trade-offs.

However, even on a straight and with this wing, an F1 car will produce enough downforce to prevent this from happening, and the disadvantage in terms of tire wear (low downforce vs. thermal stress/casing) is more than offset by the advantage of higher top speeds.

[bluechris]

Question to the more knowledge people. Which air in the car runs faster in the straight? The one that comes from the bottom and the diffuser or the top from the wings?
As i see the position of the 2 wings, in my assessment earlier in the thread i haven't counted that the upper wing that rotates is way more in the back so the air that is going upwards from the bottom is whole catched from the top and forced to go downwards or straight at least for certain. Does this help the bottom air to accelerate faster because it is forced somehow from the top wing air? Or the opposite? Also this doesn't increase the air that the following car receives? air that with a normal wing will go above it?

I miss Vanja aero work.

[Brahmal]

Is rotating a wing really that exotic from a mechanical point of view? They put more resources into studying wing flex than they do into a simple, mechanical system that is designed to rotate a wing. If the gains are there for 3-5 GP, that is more than enough to justify it.

A DRS pod is a simple mechanical system that has been proven many times over. That's why most of the teams aren't trying to reinvent the wheel here. These actuators are an unproven design that needs to be as small as possible, as light as possible, powerful enough to operate quickly against a great deal of air resistance, and has to do all of that reliably. That takes iteration to get right, which requires time and money. You don't just whip something like this up over a weekend; Ferrari have not gone down this path lightly!

[AR3-GP]

A DRS pod is a simple mechanical system that has been proven many times over. That's why most of the teams aren't trying to reinvent the wheel here.

I think some teams didn't try because they didn't think of inverting the wing. James Vowles admitted as much during the testing broadcast.

[johnnycesup]

Is active aero really that exotic? They put more resources into flexible wings than they do into a simple, mechanical system designed to rotate a wing.

The new wing looks pretty similar to the regular one in corner mode, except for the absence of the actuator in the middle. If it's indeed good in straight mode, why would they not race it everywhere? I don't think any of the "concerns" are really worth a lot:

* Too little DF on the straight - From the CFD pictures shown, the full RW looks to be pretty neutral. Since the floor will produce DF as usual (increasing with the square of speed), I don't think the change in total downforce is that significant.

* Deploying time - At the start of the straight the car is travelling slower, so the impact of the deploying time in increasing drag is reduced. At the end of the straight (assuming the wing will be manually switched before braking), whatever increased drag will only affect a tiny portion of the lap. Napkin math, but say the car is arriving at the end of the straight at 90m/s (324 kph). Assuming the wing takes 400ms to switch and in that process the extra drag causes the speed to drop to 86m/s (307kph), right before braking, the time lost because of that is less than a hundreth of a second.

The entire thing hinges on whether the wing actually reduces drag significantly or not, and whether the thicker endplates are more detrimental to performance than the central actuator. If it is better, it should be used pretty much anywhere (maybe not Monaco, perhaps even then).

With this set of regulations, I think we're at the end of track specific aero packages, except for cooling concerns.

[S D]

Let’s compare a gain of 7 km/h gain using the new wing. Assume 1 km of straights per track for arguments sake.
337 km/h vs 330 km/h.
337 km/h = 93.61 m/s, 330 km/h = 91.67 m/s
337 km/h takes 10.91 seconds. 330 km/h takes 10.68 seconds
The faster car travels 1km in (10.91s - 10.68s ) or 0.23s faster
With the faster car arriving at 1 km taking 10.68s, the slower car will only travel 979m in that time. Essentially with the same fuel the faster car has shortened the track by 21m adding the equivalent of LICO fuel savings. In a 60 lap track, the total time gain is 13.6s.

In Australia 2025, Alex Albon who was fifth at 12.773 seconds behind Lando in 1st would finish in front. Charles would be 3rd instead of 8th.

These calculations assume no traffic and ignore many factors: acceleration, which track, rain, safety cars, etc. The other cars may have other advantages as well. It’s just a mental exercise that compares the SF26 with and without this wing assuming that it works.

Run some numbers at Monza where the track is 3/4 straights. Baku with 2.2 km straight. Spa, Silverstone and Jeddah where that tracks are 1/3 to 1/2 straights.

On tracks with shorter straights, the advantage could be not losing time behind back markers being unable to pass.

[matteosc]

Teams regularly developed track specific wings and cooling packages in the previous regulations.

There is way more put into this than some Monza wing.

Is rotating a wing really that exotic from a mechanical point of view? They put more resources into studying wing flex than they do into a simple, mechanical system that is designed to rotate a wing. If the gains are there for 3-5 GP, that is more than enough to justify it.

It kind of is, because the current standard actuator are acting in a different way (more like levers than hinges), at the center, and rotating the wing of maybe ~30 degrees. The design Ferrari is testing seems to act directly on a hinge, needs to be very thin, and needs to rotate of ~270 degrees in 0.4 seconds max.

[AR3-GP]

There is way more put into this than some Monza wing.

Is rotating a wing really that exotic from a mechanical point of view? They put more resources into studying wing flex than they do into a simple, mechanical system that is designed to rotate a wing. If the gains are there for 3-5 GP, that is more than enough to justify it.

It kind of is, because the current standard actuator are acting in a different way (more like levers than hinges), at the center, and rotating the wing of maybe ~30 degrees. The design Ferrari is testing seems to act directly on a hinge, needs to be very thin, and needs to rotate of ~270 degrees in 0.4 seconds max.

In my opinion, the novelty and innovation is in the idea to flip the wing. The rest of the details are not particularly challenging for F1-level engineers.

[Andi76]

It's clear that it's intended for specific races. Remember that Ferrari goes all out to win Monza every year. We will see this wing there, las vegas, Baku, China.

On the contrary, if the theory for how it works is true this is more useful in high DF races rather than low DF.

Plus if this gains 5-7kph, they need every single one of them in every race to counter the illegal engine.

There are no illegal engines. But you already collected it as one of your stock excuses even though the season haven't started yet.

In my opinion, your statement is incorrect if it is really true that Mercedes has this higher compression ratio when warm. You couldn't violate the rules any more clearly. The regulations for 2026 stipulate a maximum compression ratio of 16:1. If an engine only complies with this limit under the specific, static test conditions of the FIA – at ambient temperature – and then effectively increases the compression ratio to around 18:1 during racing by using advanced metallurgy and thermal expansion, this clearly violates this clearly formulated rule. It is a "thermal trick" that enables an enormous gain in thermal efficiency and performance, but is physically absent during a garage inspection, while being omnipresent in the race.
This situation is not just a clever interpretation of a "gray area" as with flexi wings, and a comparison of the two is fundamentally flawed. Flexi wings involve aeroelasticity, where components pass a physical stress test but deflect under high air pressure; these are tolerated because the regulations accept that no material is infinitely stiff (in addition, steps were taken here as well, with monitoring using cameras, stickers, and more stringent rules and measurement methods). In contrast, the case of the Mercedes engine is an absolute parallel to the 2019 Ferrari fuel flow scandal, which is historically considered a violation of the integrity of the sport and is regarded as one of the most consistent cases of cheating. In 2019, Ferrari was accused of pulsing fuel between sensor measurement intervals – thereby passing the "test" even though it was illegal in the intervening moments. Mercedes is doing exactly the same thing with physics: they pass the "test" (ambient temperature) while being illegal in the moments that actually matter (operating temperature).
The core of the illegality lies in the fact that the technical regulations do not state that the 16:1 ratio must apply "only when cold," but that the maximum limit is 16:1, and this is clearly and unambiguously stated in the rules. By deliberately designing a system that circumvents this limit the moment the lights go out, the spirit of the law is not only bent, but broken. Just as Ferrari's "agreement" in 2019 is seen as a dark chapter in which a team circumvented a hard limit through a measurement loophole, Mercedes' current approach is seen by many as a calculated move to gain an unfair, "illegal" advantage by exploiting the FIA's inability to measure internal engine data at 700°C. If allowed, it sets a precedent where legality is merely a performance for the sensors and not a requirement for the machine itself. This makes the rules a complete charade and opens the floodgates to cases that are exactly like Ferrari's in 2019. This should not be the goal of F1, and action must be taken here (which is likely to happen), otherwise the regulations and the rule-makers will become ridiculous and superfluous, especially since anything else would send the message that we are applying double standards. If Mercedes is illegal in moments when it is not being measured, that's okay. If Ferrari does it, it's a scandal and illegal and cheating, and they are thrown to the media and punished. And that cannot be the purpose of drafting regulations that unambiguously state that the maximum compression ratio must not exceed 16-1 and that these rules must be observed at all times during the competition, only to then allow violations of a rule that also contradict physics and are therefore intentional (because unlike wings, whose bending is physically unavoidable, the compression ratio is normally lower at operating temperature). It should therefore be noted and clarified that our colleague is not making one of his usual excuses, but rather a statement based on the spirit AND the letter of the rules, the circumvention of which cannot be tolerated for the reasons stated. Otherwise, we might as well do away with rulebooks and regulatory authorities altogether. Or simply say that English teams are allowed to violate the rules if they are not being measured, but Ferrari is not.

Edit - The reason this is HERE is because o replied to a comment in this Thread... I'm supposed to do that in another thread? Seriously?

[Andi76]

Question to the more knowledge people. Which air in the car runs faster in the straight? The one that comes from the bottom and the diffuser or the top from the wings?
As i see the position of the 2 wings, in my assessment earlier in the thread i haven't counted that the upper wing that rotates is way more in the back so the air that is going upwards from the bottom is whole catched from the top and forced to go downwards or straight at least for certain. Does this help the bottom air to accelerate faster because it is forced somehow from the top wing air? Or the opposite? Also this doesn't increase the air that the following car receives? air that with a normal wing will go above it?

I miss Vanja aero work.

​Even if i am not a professional aerodynamicist (so, please correct me if i am wrong or did not explain it properly) i try to help your understanding with the knowledge i that I have accumulated over the years.

In general, the air traveling under the current flat floor (and even more on the Venturi-Channel Cars) is moving at a higher velocity relative to the car than the air over the top or even directly under the wings. Even without the deep tunnels of the previous generation, the extremely tight gap between the flat floor and the track forces the air to accelerate significantly to maintain mass flow.

The primary job of the diffuser at the rear of this flat floor is to take that high-velocity, low-pressure air and expand it back to ambient pressure, creating the "suction" that pins the car to the ground.

​Your intuition regarding the rear wing "catching" the air from the bottom is spot on. This interaction is a fundamental aerodynamic principle known as upwash. The rear wing does not just create downforce by being hit by air from the front; its profile creates a massive low-pressure zone behind and beneath its main plane. This area acts like a vacuum cleaner for the diffuser. By "sucking" the air out of the back of the car, the rear wing actually helps the air under the flat floor to accelerate even faster than it would on its own.
It is a synchronized system where the wing effectively "pulls" the air through the underside of the car, increasing the efficiency of the floor.

​Regarding the impact on a following car, i assume you mean when the wing is on straight mode, this of course reduces the upwash, but there still is upwash, only Ferraris Upside Down Wing probably bring an exception. So in generall the following car will get less "air to work with" and even in "open" mode, the air will not go straight, but upwards.

Here are some cfd simulations regarding velocities, closed "DRS", open "DRS" and Ferraris Upside Down wing. Hope that helps your understanding, even if the latter three are about the pressure.




[/url]




In addition, to help you visualize the angle of the air a little better, we need to mention the Coanda effect. The Coanda effect refers to the tendency of a fluid jet, such as air or liquid, to stay attached to a nearby curved surface rather than moving in a straight line. This occurs because the flow creates a local vacuum or low-pressure zone between the fluid and the surface, which effectively "sucks" the stream against the object and forces it to follow its contour. This may help you to imagine more precisely how the air flows behind the wings, whereby, of course, "the system" consisting of the diffuser and wings also influences the flow.


Of course, it should be noted that the absence of the beam wing means that the 2026 cars generate significantly less upwash than the 2025 cars. Here is a simple CFD simulation that illustrates a 2026 car. You can be sure that the amount of upwash the teams have created is better than on this very basic and simplistic Design.

[bluechris]

@Andi76 thank you really, i understood a lot.

[inox]

As far as I understand, the upside down wing alone does not reduce the drag much, but as it affects the combined flow with diffuser, the effect becomes larger.

But is the increase in straightline speed actually the biggest benefit here? I can think other benefits too:

1) Lift generating wing directs the airflow down faster behind the car, reducing the effect of slipstreaming for the following car.

2) Lift generating wing allows to set the ride height of the car lower without causing wear to the floor during the straights. Therefore the car generates more downforce in general.

3) Less force is directed to rear tyres on the straights. This could potentially reduce the rear tyre wear and help cooling the overheated tyres.