2026 car comparisons

[matteosc]

Currently, we can only estimate. Only the teams know exactly how much downforce they have achieved and how much of the 20 to 30% downforce loss they have been able to recover. In 2025, an F1 car generated the equivalent of approximately 4000 kg of downforce. Almost 70%, or 2800 kg, of this was generated by the underbody. I think it is realistic to assume a loss of 20% for the new cars (the car as a whole). According to this, a 2026 car would currently produce around 3200 kg of downforce. About 40% is generated by the underbody, which corresponds to 1280 kg. I think this is +/- 100 "kg" as an approximate value.

Thank you for the insight. So we could hypotize that a rear wing completely loosing its downforce would cause a ~60% loss of downforce on the whole car. There are a few factors that in my mind are difficult to balance:

1) The downforce generated increases with speed
2) The downforce required to avoid too much slipping decreases with speed (even only becuse of less electrical energy available)
3) The wings open after the initial acceleration, which is at low downforce and high grip required

I am sure all teams have these things in mind and come up with some sort of compromise. It is interesting that Ferrari seems to lean towards an extreme.
Another possinility is that the wing in front of the exhaust has something to do with all of this...

You're forgetting the front wing (around 30%) and the suspension, brake ducts etc. (to a very small extent). The 40% of the floor I mentioned was an approximate value; I think the truth is now closer to 45% (the teams are developing a lot in this area at the moment). But be that as it may, the rear wing alone will generate abour 25% of the downforce (but causes 30% the drag), because while the front wing and floor work with ground effect, the rear wing does not. That's why it produces less downforce in percentage terms.

That being the case, even removing completely the downforce from the rear wing, the overall downforce could easily be sufficient to avoid significant slipping.

In reality all the aerodynamic surfaces work together (especially for all appendices, which may even have lift locally), so it is not as simple ad that.
The rear wing also significantly influences floor performance, so without its upwash the floor will produce less downforce.
For the front wing, it is true that its underside produces downforce interacting with the ground, but its upper surface does not. It is probably more efficient than the rear wing, but I would not call it a "ground effect" device. In the end it still work by moving air upwards.

[Andi76]

Thank you for the insight. So we could hypotize that a rear wing completely loosing its downforce would cause a ~60% loss of downforce on the whole car. There are a few factors that in my mind are difficult to balance:

1) The downforce generated increases with speed
2) The downforce required to avoid too much slipping decreases with speed (even only becuse of less electrical energy available)
3) The wings open after the initial acceleration, which is at low downforce and high grip required

I am sure all teams have these things in mind and come up with some sort of compromise. It is interesting that Ferrari seems to lean towards an extreme.
Another possinility is that the wing in front of the exhaust has something to do with all of this...

You're forgetting the front wing (around 30%) and the suspension, brake ducts etc. (to a very small extent). The 40% of the floor I mentioned was an approximate value; I think the truth is now closer to 45% (the teams are developing a lot in this area at the moment). But be that as it may, the rear wing alone will generate abour 25% of the downforce (but causes 30% the drag), because while the front wing and floor work with ground effect, the rear wing does not. That's why it produces less downforce in percentage terms.

That being the case, even removing completely the downforce from the rear wing, the overall downforce could easily be sufficient to avoid significant slipping.

In reality all the aerodynamic surfaces work together (especially for all appendices, which may even have lift locally), so it is not as simple ad that.
The rear wing also significantly influences floor performance, so without its upwash the floor will produce less downforce.
For the front wing, it is true that its underside produces downforce interacting with the ground, but its upper surface does not. It is probably more efficient than the rear wing, but I would not call it a "ground effect" device. In the end it still work by moving air upwards.

The front wing does not generate ground effect when it is just a few centimeters above the ground—sorry, but there's no question that a frontwing does exactly that. This is just as much a fact as the fact that the underside generates most of the downforce. The proof for this is relatively simple – in addition to statements by F1 aerodynamicists such as Willem Toet – namely that the downforce of a front wing increases the closer you bring it to the ground – and thats ground effect...by Definition.

The other things you say here – again, something from F1 aerodynamicist Willem Toet:



Of course aerodynamic surfaces influence each other, the loss won't be 60%. Anyway - regarding "micro-slippage" – if you add that fact there is no doubt that if an F1 car with "normal" wings already exhibits this (depending on the setup) at speeds of 160 to 190 km/h (also a proven fact), then an F1 car with an upside-down wing that produces lift (which also makes the underbody work less effectively because, as you correctly say, the rear wing supports the underbody and allows it to produce more downforce, which is reduced with this wing) logically results in "micro-slippage" at higher speeds. It's a simple calculation. Of course, care can be taken here, which Ferrari has hopefully done. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that here, as everywhere in F1, it is a trade-off that has to be made.

[SB15]

You're forgetting the front wing (around 30%) and the suspension, brake ducts etc. (to a very small extent). The 40% of the floor I mentioned was an approximate value; I think the truth is now closer to 45% (the teams are developing a lot in this area at the moment). But be that as it may, the rear wing alone will generate abour 25% of the downforce (but causes 30% the drag), because while the front wing and floor work with ground effect, the rear wing does not. That's why it produces less downforce in percentage terms.

That being the case, even removing completely the downforce from the rear wing, the overall downforce could easily be sufficient to avoid significant slipping.

In reality all the aerodynamic surfaces work together (especially for all appendices, which may even have lift locally), so it is not as simple ad that.
The rear wing also significantly influences floor performance, so without its upwash the floor will produce less downforce.
For the front wing, it is true that its underside produces downforce interacting with the ground, but its upper surface does not. It is probably more efficient than the rear wing, but I would not call it a "ground effect" device. In the end it still work by moving air upwards.

The front wing does not generate ground effect when it is just a few centimeters above the ground—sorry, but there's no question that a frontwing does exactly that. This is just as much a fact as the fact that the underside generates most of the downforce. The proof for this is relatively simple – in addition to statements by F1 aerodynamicists such as Willem Toet – namely that the downforce of a front wing increases the closer you bring it to the ground – and thats ground effect...by Definition. So, however you call it - aerodynamicists call it "the front wings works in ground effect" because its downforce increases the closer it gets to the ground. Ground effect by Definition and there is no need to discuss it - and its a proven fact for a front wing.

The other things you say here – again, something from F1 aerodynamicist Willem Toet:

https://postimg.cc/LYmmX12z

So even though aerodynamic surfaces influence each other, it's that simple, because ultimately it was about how much downforce an F1 underbody produces. In its normal function, which includes "support" from the rear wing. And this is measurable, as well as quantifiable—see Willem Toets' diagram.


Regarding "micro-slippage" – I don't want to explain it for the third time. But here, too, there is no doubt that if an F1 car with "normal" wings already exhibits this (depending on the setup) at speeds of 160 to 190 km/h (also a proven fact), then an F1 car with an upside-down wing that produces lift (which also makes the underbody work less effectively because, as you correctly say, the rear wing supports the underbody and allows it to produce more downforce, which is reduced with this wing) logically results in "micro-slippage" at higher speeds. It's a simple calculation. Of course, care can be taken here, which Ferrari has hopefully done. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that here, as everywhere in F1, it is a trade-off that has to be made.

What an excellent observation! I never realized the floor and diffuser was more important for downforce no matter the car.

[Frank73]

You're forgetting the front wing (around 30%) and the suspension, brake ducts etc. (to a very small extent). The 40% of the floor I mentioned was an approximate value; I think the truth is now closer to 45% (the teams are developing a lot in this area at the moment). But be that as it may, the rear wing alone will generate abour 25% of the downforce (but causes 30% the drag), because while the front wing and floor work with ground effect, the rear wing does not. That's why it produces less downforce in percentage terms.

That being the case, even removing completely the downforce from the rear wing, the overall downforce could easily be sufficient to avoid significant slipping.

In reality all the aerodynamic surfaces work together (especially for all appendices, which may even have lift locally), so it is not as simple ad that.
The rear wing also significantly influences floor performance, so without its upwash the floor will produce less downforce.
For the front wing, it is true that its underside produces downforce interacting with the ground, but its upper surface does not. It is probably more efficient than the rear wing, but I would not call it a "ground effect" device. In the end it still work by moving air upwards.

The front wing does not generate ground effect when it is just a few centimeters above the ground—sorry, but there's no question that a frontwing does exactly that. This is just as much a fact as the fact that the underside generates most of the downforce. The proof for this is relatively simple – in addition to statements by F1 aerodynamicists such as Willem Toet – namely that the downforce of a front wing increases the closer you bring it to the ground – and thats ground effect...by Definition. So, however you call it - aerodynamicists call it "the front wings works in ground effect" because its downforce increases the closer it gets to the ground. Ground effect by Definition and there is no need to discuss it - and its a proven fact for a front wing.

The other things you say here – again, something from F1 aerodynamicist Willem Toet:

https://postimg.cc/LYmmX12z

So even though aerodynamic surfaces influence each other, it's that simple, because ultimately it was about how much downforce an F1 underbody produces. In its normal function, which includes "support" from the rear wing. And this is measurable, as well as quantifiable—see Willem Toets' diagram.


Regarding "micro-slippage" – I don't want to explain it for the third time. But here, too, there is no doubt that if an F1 car with "normal" wings already exhibits this (depending on the setup) at speeds of 160 to 190 km/h (also a proven fact), then an F1 car with an upside-down wing that produces lift (which also makes the underbody work less effectively because, as you correctly say, the rear wing supports the underbody and allows it to produce more downforce, which is reduced with this wing) logically results in "micro-slippage" at higher speeds. It's a simple calculation. Of course, care can be taken here, which Ferrari has hopefully done. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that here, as everywhere in F1, it is a trade-off that has to be made.

But then iof course not only Ferrari inverted wing does produce increased "micro-slippage", all the "neutralized" wings of all other teams when SM is activated surely do. That of Ferrari likely a bit more as a consequence of enabling more speed due to drag (and downforce) reduction. Personally I would expect a sizeble net advantage in making SM more efficient, since if micro-slippage was as potentially critical as you suggest, than I suspect they would not implement flap neutralization at all.

[Andi76]

That being the case, even removing completely the downforce from the rear wing, the overall downforce could easily be sufficient to avoid significant slipping.

In reality all the aerodynamic surfaces work together (especially for all appendices, which may even have lift locally), so it is not as simple ad that.
The rear wing also significantly influences floor performance, so without its upwash the floor will produce less downforce.
For the front wing, it is true that its underside produces downforce interacting with the ground, but its upper surface does not. It is probably more efficient than the rear wing, but I would not call it a "ground effect" device. In the end it still work by moving air upwards.

The front wing does not generate ground effect when it is just a few centimeters above the ground—sorry, but there's no question that a frontwing does exactly that. This is just as much a fact as the fact that the underside generates most of the downforce. The proof for this is relatively simple – in addition to statements by F1 aerodynamicists such as Willem Toet – namely that the downforce of a front wing increases the closer you bring it to the ground – and thats ground effect...by Definition. So, however you call it - aerodynamicists call it "the front wings works in ground effect" because its downforce increases the closer it gets to the ground. Ground effect by Definition and there is no need to discuss it - and its a proven fact for a front wing.

The other things you say here – again, something from F1 aerodynamicist Willem Toet:

https://postimg.cc/LYmmX12z

So even though aerodynamic surfaces influence each other, it's that simple, because ultimately it was about how much downforce an F1 underbody produces. In its normal function, which includes "support" from the rear wing. And this is measurable, as well as quantifiable—see Willem Toets' diagram.


Regarding "micro-slippage" – I don't want to explain it for the third time. But here, too, there is no doubt that if an F1 car with "normal" wings already exhibits this (depending on the setup) at speeds of 160 to 190 km/h (also a proven fact), then an F1 car with an upside-down wing that produces lift (which also makes the underbody work less effectively because, as you correctly say, the rear wing supports the underbody and allows it to produce more downforce, which is reduced with this wing) logically results in "micro-slippage" at higher speeds. It's a simple calculation. Of course, care can be taken here, which Ferrari has hopefully done. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that here, as everywhere in F1, it is a trade-off that has to be made.

But then iof course not only Ferrari inverted wing does produce increased "micro-slippage", all the "neutralized" wings of all other teams when SM is activated surely do. That of Ferrari likely a bit more as a consequence of enabling more speed due to drag (and downforce) reduction. Personally I would expect a sizeble net advantage in making SM more efficient, since if micro-slippage was as potentially critical as you suggest, than I suspect they would not implement flap neutralization at all.

Absolutely, but as the other do not produce lift, there will be less. Always assuming Ferrari did not explicitly "take action" against it. And as I said, this is obviously a trade-off—slightly higher tire wear (which you can either minimize or afford because the car generally generates little wear) in exchange for a top speed gain on the straights.

Ultimately, the exhaust-blown winglets and diffuser flick-ups will certainly be part of the solution, ensuring that the advantages of the upside-down wing can be exploited without losing much downforce compared to other teams and thus with hardly any noticeable increase in micro-slippage. This is because the diffuser is likely to produce slightly more downforce as the lower element of the wing still "supports" it, while the upside-down wing plays to its strengths.

[matteosc]

You're forgetting the front wing (around 30%) and the suspension, brake ducts etc. (to a very small extent). The 40% of the floor I mentioned was an approximate value; I think the truth is now closer to 45% (the teams are developing a lot in this area at the moment). But be that as it may, the rear wing alone will generate abour 25% of the downforce (but causes 30% the drag), because while the front wing and floor work with ground effect, the rear wing does not. That's why it produces less downforce in percentage terms.

That being the case, even removing completely the downforce from the rear wing, the overall downforce could easily be sufficient to avoid significant slipping.

In reality all the aerodynamic surfaces work together (especially for all appendices, which may even have lift locally), so it is not as simple ad that.
The rear wing also significantly influences floor performance, so without its upwash the floor will produce less downforce.
For the front wing, it is true that its underside produces downforce interacting with the ground, but its upper surface does not. It is probably more efficient than the rear wing, but I would not call it a "ground effect" device. In the end it still work by moving air upwards.

The front wing does not generate ground effect when it is just a few centimeters above the ground—sorry, but there's no question that a frontwing does exactly that. This is just as much a fact as the fact that the underside generates most of the downforce. The proof for this is relatively simple – in addition to statements by F1 aerodynamicists such as Willem Toet – namely that the downforce of a front wing increases the closer you bring it to the ground – and thats ground effect...by Definition.

The other things you say here – again, something from F1 aerodynamicist Willem Toet:

https://postimg.cc/LYmmX12z

Of course aerodynamic surfaces influence each other, the loss won't be 60%. Anyway - regarding "micro-slippage" – if you add that fact there is no doubt that if an F1 car with "normal" wings already exhibits this (depending on the setup) at speeds of 160 to 190 km/h (also a proven fact), then an F1 car with an upside-down wing that produces lift (which also makes the underbody work less effectively because, as you correctly say, the rear wing supports the underbody and allows it to produce more downforce, which is reduced with this wing) logically results in "micro-slippage" at higher speeds. It's a simple calculation. Of course, care can be taken here, which Ferrari has hopefully done. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that here, as everywhere in F1, it is a trade-off that has to be made.

I was not questioning that the front wing produces downforce by being close to the ground (which is obviously true), nor that a rear wing that produces lift makes the slipping problem worse.

I was stating that the upper surface of the front wing behaves as a wing and likely create more drag-per-downforce than the floor itself. With the current generation of car that changes, since it opens on the straight, so we should also take that into account when we talk about reduction of downforce.

I also do not think that Ferrari's rear wing generates a significant amount of lift (overall), but it may reduce drag more significantly than a conventional setup, resulting more efficient.

I understand slippage at 160-190 km/h, but at what speed does the DRS open? Because if it opens at higher speeds (it seems likely to me, but I do not have the data) that may not be such an issue. Moreover, does that consideration apply to the current generation of cars? It may be better or may be worse, but I do not think we can take it as fact yet, considering how little we know about these cars.

[bluechris]

I also do not think that Ferrari's rear wing generates a significant amount of lift (overall), but it may reduce drag more significantly than a conventional setup, resulting more efficient.

This is in Ferrari control. They can alter the upper wing position when its open to wherever angle they like.

[matteosc]

I also do not think that Ferrari's rear wing generates a significant amount of lift (overall), but it may reduce drag more significantly than a conventional setup, resulting more efficient.

This is in Ferrari control. They can alter the upper wing position when its open to wherever angle they like.

Of course they can, but do they want to generate lift? I simply don't think they would want to do that.

(And to be precise, they must use a angle that is lower than the one for the close position, by regulation.)

[Frank73]

I also do not think that Ferrari's rear wing generates a significant amount of lift (overall), but it may reduce drag more significantly than a conventional setup, resulting more efficient.

This is in Ferrari control. They can alter the upper wing position when its open to wherever angle they like.

Yeah of course the angle of attack of the inverted wing is going to be small, much much less (in absolute value) than when in normal position to generate downforce, otherwise it would be even dangerious (like wing cars in the early eighties).

[vorticism]

https://www.pmw-magazine.com/wp-content ... scaled.jpg
source: https://www.pmw-magazine.com/features/f ... etail.html

The shoulder padding looks very high or seating position is very unusual.

I've had that same feeling on the mclaren. Driver length of course might influence this a bit. If you compare the top of the helmet or the visor position vs the halo it looks lower and further back but I'm not sure. I think it's the shoulder winglet deceiving us.

The AMR26 has a lower cockpit entry height and a lower front chassis height in general. Their halo side opening aspect ratio is more square than the others. Said another way, the eye of their halo is more open, less squinted.

The low cockpit entry sides are even more pronounced on the RB22. The chassis slopes continuously from the nose to the front halo mount (an unusual detail that looks like an 80s F1 car) and continues sloping down around the cockpit entry such that Verstappen's helmet is almost entirely visible from the side of the car.

These dimensions can be checked relative to the rearview mirrors, which have to be within a narrow spec height relative to the reference plane (reflective of the tyres on all the cars being the same dimensions), and also the height of the transition fairing at the base of the front halo mounting.

The distance from the halo to the top of the mirror is roughly the same on all cars, and this is patently visible. The distance from the cockpit entry to the bottom of the mirrors, however, is what more obviously changes.

Sidenote: with fixed mirror heights, a shorter driver may have a (trivially) higher CoG, since their sightline would need to be at the common height but they would not be able to sit as low in the chassis, depending on driving postures imposed by the seat and pedals.

[organic]

Another key part of the regulations where some divergence is possible concerns the dimensions between the front axle line and the cockpit. Even within the same wheelbase, there is a 250mm variance possible. Bringing them as close together as possible allows a higher nose (and therefore more air volume to the underfloor) but makes it potentially more difficult to manage the wake around the front tyres. Red Bull appears to have opted to bring the cockpit and axle line closer together than Mercedes, Ferrari or Aston. McLaren, with its shorter wheelbase, has its cockpit about the same distance from the axle as Red Bull.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arti ... e-in-2026/

Some other nuggets in there but don't have time

[vorticism]

The AMR26 has a lower cockpit entry height and a lower front chassis height in general. Their halo side opening aspect ratio is more square than the others. Said another way, the eye of their halo is more open, less squinted.

Cropping that quoted photo, it's plainly visible. The AMR26 chassis top sits ~30mm lower than the VCARB's (and most of the other cars). The halo front anchor sits on a pad of similar height.

[Brahmal]

McLaren 10cm shorter wheelbase than the rest. RB cockpit more forward than other LWB cars. Ferrari with longer rear bodywork due to differential location.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arti ... e-in-2026/

[vorticism]

...

Ferrari may simply have the diff inline with the wheels. ...

I am getting the impression that Ferrari simply have a neutral, 0* half-shaft angle, while other teams simply chose to orient their differentials farther forward. Which would make some sense--mass centralization, and with rake, every bit placed further forward has a slightly lower center of gravity. Regardless, as it relates to the quoted thread, this affects the extent to which bodywork can be placed around the exhaust exit.

[venkyhere]

Looks like W17 & McL40 ran the bigger wings (more dishing on the RW mainplane, more aggressive AoA on FW '3rd flap') and the SF26 & RB22 (especially) ran much lesser ones.