Ferrari SF-26

[Badger]

I wonder if this will be used as an optional wing depending on the circuit. Due to the weight penalty and it likely compromising RW downforce slightly it could be suboptimal on high downforce circuits. But on fast tracks you mostly get the benefits.

[matteosc]

I wonder if this will be used as an optional wing depending on the circuit. Due to the weight penalty and it likely compromising RW downforce slightly it could be suboptimal on high downforce circuits. But on fast tracks you mostly get the benefits.

It may not necessarily compromise the downforce. Surely the bulky sides will reduce the wing span, but the tips are not that loaded anyways. Plus the lack of a mechanism in the middle will be beneficial.

If they can shrink and reduce the weight of the two side actuators, it may work everywhere.

[sucof]

I wonder if this will be used as an optional wing depending on the circuit. Due to the weight penalty and it likely compromising RW downforce slightly it could be suboptimal on high downforce circuits. But on fast tracks you mostly get the benefits.

Such solutions are usually can enhance both. You can design a wing that works better in corner and straight mode.
Moreover, I am quite sure any team can design a rear wing that yields too much downforce. The problem is drag.
So the max downforce rear wings have is dictated by its drag. So the solution for a better rear wing (any wing) is to come up with a solution with lower drag. Hence the rotating wing was born.

[amr]

There are many optimisations that can be made in order to make this the go-to wing.
They could try to integrate a cam profile in the pivot point to control not only the rotation but also axial movement. I know there is a requirement to have an overlap of the wing elements, so a cam profile will solve this.

One can imagine that if successful, with a cam profile, they could slide back the trailing elements, the downforce will naturally rotate the wing elements down and back, requiring less force from the actuator and faster opening.
Then, to close it, they will keep rotating in the same direction as is happening now. No more clockwise and counterclockwise rotation, just one direction.

Then this cam profile will maybe open the window of optimisation for the pivot point as well.
Let's see what they do, but clear out of the box thinking from them.

[jrdls]

Dr Obbs' analysis of the Macarena rear wing based on the CFD simulation posted before here:

[aberracus]

Dr Obbs' analysis of the Macarena rear wing based on the CFD simulation posted before here:

The analysis occurs with a super slow motion video, that gives the idea that the Macarena wing is going to be bad. we need to remember that the movement happens in less than half a second.

[algebraist]

Dusting off my old account ... to my inexpert eye, I think they've managed a real clever trick here.

My reasoning is this:

1) They are getting minor amounts of lift in the flipped state.
2) The car has been observed lowering it's front wing a second or two after the rear wing flips.
3) The Williams FW14B had an early DRS button on it where the active suspension pitched the front of the car down, and the rear upward in order to stall the diffuser in a straight line and remove a significant amount of drag.

I suspect the Ferrari may be pulling the same trick: to effectively "parachute" the car and remove a ton of diffuser drag in a straight line. I've only got prior art and observed behaviour to go on however.

[PlatinumZealot]

Revs typically only vary by +\- 20% over your 11000 average, it should work mostly the same at all times.
I think if this if clever in isolation, or a direct byproduct of the new “always charging” 2026 rules making it desirable to have engine on at almost all times. This will now work with more gas under braking and in the initial and middle part of the corner…

The rule change from:
>ICE torque varies with driver's power demand,
to:
>OVERALL torque varies with driver's power demand
is essentially an invitation to run ICEs at maximum load (or what is allowed by the FIA's minimum negative torque equation) at all times.
That is also probably why they lowered max fuel flow from 100kg/hr to 70kg/hr, this way they can run the race with about 90kg of fuel (similar to 2025) and run still have as much harvesting as they can.
It's kind of surprising only Ferrari thought about maximising exhaust blowing for aero purposes given this was built into the regulations from day 1.

Wait wait wait.
The Hybrid gen 1 rules and these rules are still the same as it relates to monotonic torque demand versus throttle position for a given engine map. That hasn't changed.

Also the previous PU was pretty much full throttle ALOT of the time. In fact we can use the battery discharge graphic to estimate how much energy flow was from the ICE and how much was battery. On the ICE side it is very tricky. The ICE in previous rules used the MGUH to recover some energy from the exhaust and we have a rough idea (like around 60hp or so) but keep in mind only the engineers knew when and in what manner the MGUH was sending power to the MGUK versus battery. In fact it could have been sending power to both MGUK and battery at the same time so complex were those systems.

It's anyone's guess how much more percent load these ICE are versus the previous generation.

[johnnycesup]

Dr Obbs' analysis of the Macarena rear wing based on the CFD simulation posted before here:

The analysis occurs with a super slow motion video, that gives the idea that the Macarena wing is going to be bad. we need to remember that the movement happens in less than half a second.

Agreed! To me, the most important part in this video is the result after the wing stops moving.

As the wing passes through the "regular DRS" position, the smallest Cd is around 0.075 (so a 70-75% drag reducion) . The macarena wing looks like 0.03 at most (a 85-90% drag reduction).

And if the macarena interacts with the floor/exhaust flows to reduce the drag further, I don't think what happens in the 0.25s when the wing is moving, at lower speed, is that significant.

[dialtone]

Agreed! To me, the most important part in this video is the result after the wing stops moving.

As the wing passes through the "regular DRS" position, the smallest Cd is around 0.075 (so a 70-75% drag reducion) . The macarena wing looks like 0.03 at most (a 85-90% drag reduction).

And if the macarena interacts with the floor/exhaust flows to reduce the drag further, I don't think what happens in the 0.25s when the wing is moving, at lower speed, is that significant.

So technically this Macarena wing is between 40% and 66% more efficient than a normal DRS, just at the wing alone.

[AR3-GP]

Dr Obbs' analysis of the Macarena rear wing based on the CFD simulation posted before here:

The analysis occurs with a super slow motion video, that gives the idea that the Macarena wing is going to be bad. we need to remember that the movement happens in less than half a second.

Agreed! To me, the most important part in this video is the result after the wing stops moving.

As the wing passes through the "regular DRS" position, the smallest Cd is around 0.075 (so a 70-75% drag reducion) . The macarena wing looks like 0.03 at most (a 85-90% drag reduction).

And if the macarena interacts with the floor/exhaust flows to reduce the drag further, I don't think what happens in the 0.25s when the wing is moving, at lower speed, is that significant.

The "regular DRS" value is misleading because the pivot point is not optimized around a "regular DRS" system.

[Stu]

The analysis occurs with a super slow motion video, that gives the idea that the Macarena wing is going to be bad. we need to remember that the movement happens in less than half a second.

Agreed! To me, the most important part in this video is the result after the wing stops moving.

As the wing passes through the "regular DRS" position, the smallest Cd is around 0.075 (so a 70-75% drag reducion) . The macarena wing looks like 0.03 at most (a 85-90% drag reduction).

And if the macarena interacts with the floor/exhaust flows to reduce the drag further, I don't think what happens in the 0.25s when the wing is moving, at lower speed, is that significant.

The "regular DRS" value is misleading because the pivot point is not optimized around a "regular DRS" system.

Indeed! I found it difficult to track the pivot point (I think that it is roughly centred, but on the centreline of one of the surfaces.
When I challenged the Alpine vs ‘DRS’ simulation it seems that mainplane and flap geometry makes a huge difference to the results.

[venkyhere]

The analysis occurs with a super slow motion video, that gives the idea that the Macarena wing is going to be bad. we need to remember that the movement happens in less than half a second.

Agreed! To me, the most important part in this video is the result after the wing stops moving.

As the wing passes through the "regular DRS" position, the smallest Cd is around 0.075 (so a 70-75% drag reducion) . The macarena wing looks like 0.03 at most (a 85-90% drag reduction).

And if the macarena interacts with the floor/exhaust flows to reduce the drag further, I don't think what happens in the 0.25s when the wing is moving, at lower speed, is that significant.

The "regular DRS" value is misleading because the pivot point is not optimized around a "regular DRS" system.

Bingo. Was about to say this.
That entire video and the graphs, are mainly to show 'trend' , rather than provide 'numbers'. The CFD wings themselves (shape, relative sizes of mainplane and flap, number of elements, their AoA etc) are not representative, so no point discussing 'regular DRS' v/s 'macarena' performance numbers.
That video/graph is meant to be a 'guide' not 'representative'.

[Farnborough]

Dusting off my old account ... to my inexpert eye, I think they've managed a real clever trick here.

My reasoning is this:

1) They are getting minor amounts of lift in the flipped state.
2) The car has been observed lowering it's front wing a second or two after the rear wing flips.
3) The Williams FW14B had an early DRS button on it where the active suspension pitched the front of the car down, and the rear upward in order to stall the diffuser in a straight line and remove a significant amount of drag.

I suspect the Ferrari may be pulling the same trick: to effectively "parachute" the car and remove a ton of diffuser drag in a straight line. I've only got prior art and observed behaviour to go on however.

I just checked for detail about that example, this as my recollection was to drop the rear in "stalling" the diffuser and so drag on the straight .... which seems to be true.

With front flap dropped, and more air going under floor, then wouldn't that negate the diffuser accumulation ?

In which case, rotating the rear wing back to DF deployment ahead of the front wing should add to stability as rear load starts to come on stream (always promotes directional stability) followed by front wing flap lifting to then bring the underfloor more into diffuser performance, the phasing of this could fully promote stability under rear regeneration wheel torque to maximise recovery while holding onto stability.

[Shakeman]

It's not a blown diffuser where the exhaust is directly influencing the throat veleocity and thus peak pressure of the diffuser. In this case the exahaust is just adding some energy to the diffuser wake and helping the extraction a little bit more, and also helping the rear wing. Remember this is a opportunitistic solution that's making do with "scraps available." it's not a big gun solution like the double diffuser or F-duct.

I'm seeing suggestions of 0.5s a lap. I have no idea if that's true but I think this is much more than 'opportunistic'. It's a very clever piece of engineering to spot the sliver of grey area in the rules in order to gain back the functionality of the monkey seat.

Ferrari will be able to run a wing with greater angle of attack for cornering and lose the drag penalty on the straight with the Kebab wing. The blown diffuser extension should not be viewed in isolation but in tandem with the rotating rear wing element. Other teams will be able to copy the rotating wing but they can't so easily copy the blown diffuser extension and gain the advantage Ferrari has baked in.

I take my hat off to Ferrari, this is thinking out of the box. Along with the choice of turbo they could've made some inspired design choices. Only time will tell.