Ferrari SF-26

[AR3-GP]

I've been thinking about the purpose of the "sticky-uppy bit" in the center of Ferrari's macarena wing. I think its purpose is to pretension the flap. It makes some drag which when applied in this position relative to the rotation point is creating a "restoring torque" that keeps the wing under a rotational tension when it's upside down. Either that or it's some kind of counterweight or mass damper to do the same thing.

That may be the case, but Ferrari clearly consider it to be an aerodynamic element as well. It even has it's own tiny little gurney flap!

Yes but I think it's not for specifically for generating downforce on its own. Its connected to the operation of the wing. Potentially part of making it move faster or move more reliably.

[mzso]

By the way, it seems that RedBull has been working on this for a while, before Ferrari showed its solution. So may not be inspired by Ferrari's wing at all.

Seems from what? There was no mention or sign of it until the recent filming day test.

[AmateurDriver]

By the way, it seems that RedBull has been working on this for a while, before Ferrari showed its solution. So may not be inspired by Ferrari's wing at all.

Seems from what? There was no mention or sign of it until the recent filming day test.

Maybe they started working on it not much after Ferrari, but it is clear the idea leaked from Maranello to Milton Keynes. Come Red Bull ("we started studying it independently"), DRS has stayed the same for many years, and then all of a sudden two team conceive the same idea in the same days...

[Brahmal]

Maybe they started working on it not much after Ferrari, but it is clear the idea leaked from Maranello to Milton Keynes. Come Red Bull ("we started studying it independently"), DRS has stayed the same for many years, and then all of a sudden two team conceive the same idea in the same days...

There was an interview with Tombazis when Ferrari's wing first surfaced, who stated that they had deliberately opened up the regulations with active aero to encourage more innovations like this. This implies that the DRS mechanism was very tightly regulated throughout most of that era. I'm sure all of the teams have investigated alternatives to some extent, with Ferrari and Red Bull just being the most advanced. I bet by this time next year, few or no teams will have the traditional DRS opening style.

[AmateurDriver]

Maybe they started working on it not much after Ferrari, but it is clear the idea leaked from Maranello to Milton Keynes. Come Red Bull ("we started studying it independently"), DRS has stayed the same for many years, and then all of a sudden two team conceive the same idea in the same days...

There was an interview with Tombazis when Ferrari's wing first surfaced, who stated that they had deliberately opened up the regulations with active aero to encourage more innovations like this. This implies that the DRS mechanism was very tightly regulated throughout most of that era. I'm sure all of the teams have investigated alternatives to some extent, with Ferrari and Red Bull just being the most advanced. I bet by this time next year, few or no teams will have the traditional DRS opening style.

I don't think so, when macarena wing was first spotted, people started immediately wondering whether or not it was completely legal, and concluded that it was indeed, since all regulation demands (and demanded) is having only two stable positions for the movable flap, without specifying which direction flap has to be oriented. If macarena wing was the direct consequence of a regulatory liberalization, this would imply that flipping the flap was already in the mind of rule makers, and then of course in the mind of all teams' aerodynamicists, which is not the case, since we have only two teams operating the concept.

[matteosc]

Maybe they started working on it not much after Ferrari, but it is clear the idea leaked from Maranello to Milton Keynes. Come Red Bull ("we started studying it independently"), DRS has stayed the same for many years, and then all of a sudden two team conceive the same idea in the same days...

There was an interview with Tombazis when Ferrari's wing first surfaced, who stated that they had deliberately opened up the regulations with active aero to encourage more innovations like this. This implies that the DRS mechanism was very tightly regulated throughout most of that era. I'm sure all of the teams have investigated alternatives to some extent, with Ferrari and Red Bull just being the most advanced. I bet by this time next year, few or no teams will have the traditional DRS opening style.

I don't think so, when macarena wing was first spotted, people started immediately wondering whether or not it was completely legal, and concluded that it was indeed, since all regulation demands (and demanded) is having only two stable positions for the movable flap, without specifying which direction flap has to be oriented. If macarena wing was the direct consequence of a regulatory liberalization, this would imply that flipping the flap was already in the mind of rule makers, and then of course in the mind of all teams' aerodynamicists, which is not the case, since we have only two teams operating the concept.

I do not remember where I saw it first exactly, but with a quick search here is a link to the interview: https://www.grandprix247.com/formula-1- ... re-ferrari

Edit: here is where I first read it, but it is in italian, so I will keep both links:
https://www.formulapassion.it/f1/f1-new ... la-ferrari

[AmateurDriver]

There was an interview with Tombazis when Ferrari's wing first surfaced, who stated that they had deliberately opened up the regulations with active aero to encourage more innovations like this. This implies that the DRS mechanism was very tightly regulated throughout most of that era. I'm sure all of the teams have investigated alternatives to some extent, with Ferrari and Red Bull just being the most advanced. I bet by this time next year, few or no teams will have the traditional DRS opening style.

I don't think so, when macarena wing was first spotted, people started immediately wondering whether or not it was completely legal, and concluded that it was indeed, since all regulation demands (and demanded) is having only two stable positions for the movable flap, without specifying which direction flap has to be oriented. If macarena wing was the direct consequence of a regulatory liberalization, this would imply that flipping the flap was already in the mind of rule makers, and then of course in the mind of all teams' aerodynamicists, which is not the case, since we have only two teams operating the concept.

I do not remember where I saw it first exactly, but with a quick search here is a link to the interview: https://www.grandprix247.com/formula-1- ... re-ferrari

Edit: here is where I first read it, but it is in italian, so I will keep both links:
https://www.formulapassion.it/f1/f1-new ... la-ferrari

Literally, what Mekies says is likely true: they started designing before seeing the Ferrari implementation. What I do suspect is that the basic concept somehow leaked from Maranello, coincidence in time is suspect for such a disruption of a long established state of the art. You know, such things happen in F1.

[matteosc]

I don't think so, when macarena wing was first spotted, people started immediately wondering whether or not it was completely legal, and concluded that it was indeed, since all regulation demands (and demanded) is having only two stable positions for the movable flap, without specifying which direction flap has to be oriented. If macarena wing was the direct consequence of a regulatory liberalization, this would imply that flipping the flap was already in the mind of rule makers, and then of course in the mind of all teams' aerodynamicists, which is not the case, since we have only two teams operating the concept.

I do not remember where I saw it first exactly, but with a quick search here is a link to the interview: https://www.grandprix247.com/formula-1- ... re-ferrari

Edit: here is where I first read it, but it is in italian, so I will keep both links:
https://www.formulapassion.it/f1/f1-new ... la-ferrari

Literally, what Mekies says is likely true: they started designing before seeing the Ferrari implementation. What I do suspect is that the basic concept somehow leaked from Maranello, coincidence in time is suspect for such a disruption of a long established state of the art. You know, such things happen in F1.

That could be true, but it is also possible that the difference in the implementation stems from independent concepts.

[Gabriox]

https://x.com/RosarioGiuliana/status/20 ... 95/photo/1
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HHK278eXAAA ... name=large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HHK278gWAAA ... name=large

I’m surprised that they still haven’t brought a diveplane. Almost everyone else uses one now.

Me too, all the teams have it now. It must be useful for tire management, wear or atleast something. Alot of ferrari innovation have been copied but they are obviously down on ICE power. If not I think they could be fighting at the front too

[SilviuAgo]

Macarena wing in action on the Ferrari of Charles Leclerc and the Red Bull of Max Verstappen.
Look at the size differences in the gap.



Credit:
@XPBImages

[Emag]

Macarena wing in action on the Ferrari of Charles Leclerc and the Red Bull of Max Verstappen.
Look at the size differences in the gap.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HHhn3xAXQAA ... ame=medium

Credit:
@XPBImages

Does the gap really matter? The wing in itself will generate drag even if you put it 10 miles up in the sky if it is still attached to the car somehow. What could be beneficial (or not) is the proximity to the endplates, because there you can maybe get some meaningful interaction between the two bodywork elements.

[sucof]

Macarena wing in action on the Ferrari of Charles Leclerc and the Red Bull of Max Verstappen.
Look at the size differences in the gap.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HHhn3xAXQAA ... ame=medium

Credit:
@XPBImages

This hyper fixation of that gap is contra productive.
Even if it is beneficial, its like 1% difference. And then add to it that the RB solution generates a lot srtonger end plate vortices because the wing ends in free air, creating a lot of drag.
So in the end its efficiency in regards to its gains shall be very similar to the Ferrari solution.

Add to all that the large actuator in the middle, which creates continuously drag and vortices, worsening the effectiveness of the entire wing. Regardless if closed or opened.

[S D]

Macarena wing in action on the Ferrari of Charles Leclerc and the Red Bull of Max Verstappen.
Look at the size differences in the gap.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HHhn3xAXQAA ... ame=medium

Credit:
@XPBImages

It's possible that the RB gap is necessary for the rotation, whereas Ferrari rotate the opposite direction and can keep the wing closer.

[nico5]

Macarena wing in action on the Ferrari of Charles Leclerc and the Red Bull of Max Verstappen.
Look at the size differences in the gap.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HHhn3xAXQAA ... ame=medium

Credit:
@XPBImages

This hyper fixation of that gap is contra productive.
Even if it is beneficial, its like 1% difference. And then add to it that the RB solution generates a lot srtonger end plate vortices because the wing ends in free air, creating a lot of drag.
So in the end its efficiency in regards to its gains shall be very similar to the Ferrari solution.

Add to all that the large actuator in the middle, which creates continuously drag and vortices, worsening the effectiveness of the entire wing. Regardless if closed or opened.

Exactly. At the end of the day what you're trying to promote is earlier separation on the mainplane and having the flap closer to it should achieve that better, not worse. It's not like you care about absolute local downwash per se. You use that to achieve something else.

[AmateurDriver]

Macarena wing in action on the Ferrari of Charles Leclerc and the Red Bull of Max Verstappen.
Look at the size differences in the gap.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HHhn3xAXQAA ... ame=medium

Credit:
@XPBImages

This hyper fixation of that gap is contra productive.
Even if it is beneficial, its like 1% difference. And then add to it that the RB solution generates a lot srtonger end plate vortices because the wing ends in free air, creating a lot of drag.
So in the end its efficiency in regards to its gains shall be very similar to the Ferrari solution.

Add to all that the large actuator in the middle, which creates continuously drag and vortices, worsening the effectiveness of the entire wing. Regardless if closed or opened.

Exactly. At the end of the day what you're trying to promote is earlier separation on the mainplane and having the flap closer to it should achieve that better, not worse. It's not like you care about absolute local downwash per se. You use that to achieve something else.

The Red Bull arrangement is much more straightforward and cheaper. It is not that Ferrari went the more difficult path because they failed to figure out the most obvious solution or for the sake of it.