2026 car comparisons

[bluechris]

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.

For the 1 and 2 i expressed the same feelings but we sure dont know the power effect that this thing does.. for the 3 i don't get it how the wing flow affects the rear tyres.

[Brahmal]

For the 1 and 2 i expressed the same feelings but we sure dont know the power effect that this thing does.. for the 3 i don't get it how the wing flow affects the rear tyres.

When driving in a straight line, increasing downforce does put additional stress on the tire and increases degradation. Bigger contact patch, added stress to the sidewalls etc. Not nearly as pronounced or damaging as the tire sliding for example, but is still a thing. So less downforce will help preserve the tires in this situation.

I'm curious to see what the tire degradation pattern is with the new cars, haven't really seen that reported anywhere. With the previous generation, the floors created more downforce with speed so the cars were putting a tremendous amount of force through the tires on high-speed straights. The new cars do the opposite, but not sure if it'll be enough to matter all that much.

[Andi76]

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.

Your third point isn't really quite right, as you're essentially equating low load with low tire wear, which is incorrect. Vertical aerodynamic load—or the lack thereof—plays a crucial role in the longitudinal wear of a tire at high speed on a straight track. The physics of this interaction focus on the relationship between vertical pressure, internal heat generation, and mechanical slip.

In a high downforce configuration, the aerodynamic surfaces of the vehicle exert increasing vertical load (F_z) as speed increases. This compresses the tire carcass, significantly increasing the contact patch. While a larger contact patch generally provides more grip, it has a significant impact on the internal structure of the tire. The constant cycle of compression and expansion at high speeds results in intense "walk work" or hysteresis. This process converts mechanical energy into thermal energy within the rubber compound.

If the downforce is too high, the core temperature can rise above the optimal operating range, leading to thermal decomposition or "blistering," where the internal bond of the rubber fails due to overheating. Essentially, excessive downforce wears the tire from the inside out through thermal stress and carcass fatigue.

Conversely, low drive or lift causes more destructive mechanical wear known as "micro-slippage." As the vehicle reaches higher speeds, the reduction in vertical load causes the car to become "light," which reduces the friction limit between the tread and the asphalt. Even if the driver does not consciously spin the wheels, the torque of the engine often exceeds the reduced adhesion values, causing the tires to rotate slightly faster than the actual speed on the ground. This high-frequency slippage acts like abrasive sandpaper, physically grinding the rubber off the surface. Furthermore, without sufficient pressure to press the tire into the asphalt structure, the rubber cannot reach its ideal surface temperature, which often leads to "graining" – where cold, brittle rubber is torn off the tread.

Ultimately, choosing the aerodynamic setup is a delicate balancing act. While a high downforce setup risks "cooking" the tire through vertical pressure and internal friction, a low downforce or lift setup "shreds" the surface through slippage and instability. The search for balance is not just about lap time, but also about ensuring that the tire remains in a functional range where neither thermal blistering nor mechanical abrasion becomes the predominant failure mode. If the tire receives the "necessary, consistent load," this reduces tire wear because it remains in the optimal temperature window and does not slip (which, as already mentioned, has a destructive effect on the tread). As you can see, low load does not necessarily mean less wear, but usually the opposite. Ferrari must therefore ensure that the upside-down wing still puts enough load on the rear axle so that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and excessive tread wear does not become a problem. I assume that this is being taken into account.

[mzso]

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.

Said no one in 2019. If you are going to get around the rules by tricking how they are measured, decide whether its either cheating or innovation and stick with it. There maybe no illegal engines, but there are double standards

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/51755673

Yes, but it's 2026. We only have a "we didn't think of that" factor now.

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.

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.

Even if the "at ambient temperature" note wouldn't explicitly legalize it, it would still be legal.
Since all engines expand when hot, the compression ratio always increases. So implicitly a fixed compression ratio only has meaning at ambient. The comparison to flexi wings is very much valid. A hot running compression ratio restriction only makes sense if they specify a margin and a measurement method and a state for it to be measured. Otherwise even manufacturers can't know hot to design an engine that abides by the regulations.
They planning something now, but if the test will be at 100°c as reported, I doubt it it will change much...

The Ferrari thing was clear cheating. There was a fuel flow limit, but the pumped more fuel, undetected. Nothing prevented them to limit the fuel flow to appropriate limits. It's more akin to Tyrrell filling lead shots into the tanks.

But it was always an unavoidable fact that an engine having a CR of 1:16 at ambient will have something higher when running.

[matteosc]

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.

Your third point isn't really quite right, as you're essentially equating low load with low tire wear, which is incorrect. Vertical aerodynamic load—or the lack thereof—plays a crucial role in the longitudinal wear of a tire at high speed on a straight track. The physics of this interaction focus on the relationship between vertical pressure, internal heat generation, and mechanical slip.

In a high downforce configuration, the aerodynamic surfaces of the vehicle exert increasing vertical load (F_z) as speed increases. This compresses the tire carcass, significantly increasing the contact patch. While a larger contact patch generally provides more grip, it has a significant impact on the internal structure of the tire. The constant cycle of compression and expansion at high speeds results in intense "walk work" or hysteresis. This process converts mechanical energy into thermal energy within the rubber compound.

If the downforce is too high, the core temperature can rise above the optimal operating range, leading to thermal decomposition or "blistering," where the internal bond of the rubber fails due to overheating. Essentially, excessive downforce wears the tire from the inside out through thermal stress and carcass fatigue.

Conversely, low drive or lift causes more destructive mechanical wear known as "micro-slippage." As the vehicle reaches higher speeds, the reduction in vertical load causes the car to become "light," which reduces the friction limit between the tread and the asphalt. Even if the driver does not consciously spin the wheels, the torque of the engine often exceeds the reduced adhesion values, causing the tires to rotate slightly faster than the actual speed on the ground. This high-frequency slippage acts like abrasive sandpaper, physically grinding the rubber off the surface. Furthermore, without sufficient pressure to press the tire into the asphalt structure, the rubber cannot reach its ideal surface temperature, which often leads to "graining" – where cold, brittle rubber is torn off the tread.

Ultimately, choosing the aerodynamic setup is a delicate balancing act. While a high downforce setup risks "cooking" the tire through vertical pressure and internal friction, a low downforce or lift setup "shreds" the surface through slippage and instability. The search for balance is not just about lap time, but also about ensuring that the tire remains in a functional range where neither thermal blistering nor mechanical abrasion becomes the predominant failure mode. If the tire receives the "necessary, consistent load," this reduces tire wear because it remains in the optimal temperature window and does not slip (which, as already mentioned, has a destructive effect on the tread). As you can see, low load does not necessarily mean less wear, but usually the opposite. Ferrari must therefore ensure that the upside-down wing still puts enough load on the rear axle so that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and excessive tread wear does not become a problem. I assume that this is being taken into account.

I do not think the grip of the tire would be exceeded at high speed in the straights, because (1) the amount of grip required is no longer that high, compared to accelerating at the beginning or breaking at the end and (2) the floor still generates increasing levels of downforce. There is a reason why they are full throttle for almost the full straight: they are power limited at the pointm no longer grip limited.

Everything you said is absolutely correct and, if the downforce was to drop to almost zero, you would get increased degradation, but practically I think that would not happen. What could happen is that the tire gets too cold, which is a significant performance issue.

[ryaan2904]

There are no illegal engines.

Said no one in 2019. If you are going to get around the rules by tricking how they are measured, decide whether its either cheating or innovation and stick with it. There maybe no illegal engines, but there are double standards

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/51755673

Yes, but it's 2026. We only have a "we didn't think of that" factor now.

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.

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.

Even if the "at ambient temperature" note wouldn't explicitly legalize it, it would still be legal.
Since all engines expand when hot, the compression ratio always increases. So implicitly a fixed compression ratio only has meaning at ambient. The comparison to flexi wings is very much valid. A hot running compression ratio restriction only makes sense if they specify a margin and a measurement method and a state for it to be measured. Otherwise even manufacturers can't know hot to design an engine that abides by the regulations.
They planning something now, but if the test will be at 100°c as reported, I doubt it it will change much...

The Ferrari thing was clear cheating. There was a fuel flow limit, but the pumped more fuel, undetected. Nothing prevented them to limit the fuel flow to appropriate limits. It's more akin to Tyrrell filling lead shots into the tanks.

But it was always an unavoidable fact that an engine having a CR of 1:16 at ambient will have something higher when running.

Your arguments counter each other. If its "2026" now why look at the Ferrari innovation with the 2019 lens? Also in case you didn't check, the link i included was for an article that said the Fia couldn't prove any wrong doing with the Ferrari engine and they kept it impounded for months.

In comparison mercedes have already had a soft admittion of wrong doing by openly stating they have a higher CR. Objectively, the Ferrari innovation was way clever, whereas all Mercedes have done is use clever lobbying tricks to add new clauses to the rules mid season. Give the same rules to ever manufacturer and i bet even Renault could've come up with the Merc cheat trick. The same cant be said for the Ferrari innovation

[LM10]

Since all engines expand when hot, the compression ratio always increases.

Are you sure about that?

A former power unit technical boss has explained to The Race that typically an engine with a 16:1 compression ratio when cold would drop to around 15.2-15.2:1 in operation because although the con rod expands, the block expands more.

But it was always an unavoidable fact that an engine having a CR of 1:16 at ambient will have something higher when running.

I didn’t know that by the laws of physics it was impossible to build a PU staying within the limit of 16:1. Exceeding it was never an option since it would be against the intention of the rule, as Tombazis himself said. However, obviously he didn’t think of this - is it the 1st or 2nd law of mzso?

[Andi76]

There are no illegal engines.

Said no one in 2019. If you are going to get around the rules by tricking how they are measured, decide whether its either cheating or innovation and stick with it. There maybe no illegal engines, but there are double standards

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/51755673

Yes, but it's 2026. We only have a "we didn't think of that" factor now.

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.

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.

Even if the "at ambient temperature" note wouldn't explicitly legalize it, it would still be legal.
Since all engines expand when hot, the compression ratio always increases. So implicitly a fixed compression ratio only has meaning at ambient. The comparison to flexi wings is very much valid. A hot running compression ratio restriction only makes sense if they specify a margin and a measurement method and a state for it to be measured. Otherwise even manufacturers can't know hot to design an engine that abides by the regulations.
They planning something now, but if the test will be at 100°c as reported, I doubt it it will change much...

The Ferrari thing was clear cheating. There was a fuel flow limit, but the pumped more fuel, undetected. Nothing prevented them to limit the fuel flow to appropriate limits. It's more akin to Tyrrell filling lead shots into the tanks.

But it was always an unavoidable fact that an engine having a CR of 1:16 at ambient will have something higher when running.

That's not right. In two respects. First, with regard to Ferrari and why what Mercedes is doing is exactly the same – both Ferrari's fuel trick from 2019 and the manipulation of the compression ratio under heat follow exactly the same logic: maximizing performance within the measurement gaps.

And now to the crucial point, because in a standard racing engine, the compression ratio normally decreases when it runs hot, not increases. The expansion of the materials and the "breathing" of the cylinder head under extreme pressure naturally increase the volume of the combustion chamber, resulting in a drop in compression. If, instead, an engine has a stable or even increasing compression ratio at elevated temperatures, this contradicts the laws of physics and directly points to a sophisticated, deliberate technical trick. Exactly the same as with Ferrari – if it is not measured, we may be violating the regulations. Because, once again, the compression in a racing engine does not increase when it gets hot, it drops slightly.

[Andi76]

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.

Your third point isn't really quite right, as you're essentially equating low load with low tire wear, which is incorrect. Vertical aerodynamic load—or the lack thereof—plays a crucial role in the longitudinal wear of a tire at high speed on a straight track. The physics of this interaction focus on the relationship between vertical pressure, internal heat generation, and mechanical slip.

In a high downforce configuration, the aerodynamic surfaces of the vehicle exert increasing vertical load (F_z) as speed increases. This compresses the tire carcass, significantly increasing the contact patch. While a larger contact patch generally provides more grip, it has a significant impact on the internal structure of the tire. The constant cycle of compression and expansion at high speeds results in intense "walk work" or hysteresis. This process converts mechanical energy into thermal energy within the rubber compound.

If the downforce is too high, the core temperature can rise above the optimal operating range, leading to thermal decomposition or "blistering," where the internal bond of the rubber fails due to overheating. Essentially, excessive downforce wears the tire from the inside out through thermal stress and carcass fatigue.

Conversely, low drive or lift causes more destructive mechanical wear known as "micro-slippage." As the vehicle reaches higher speeds, the reduction in vertical load causes the car to become "light," which reduces the friction limit between the tread and the asphalt. Even if the driver does not consciously spin the wheels, the torque of the engine often exceeds the reduced adhesion values, causing the tires to rotate slightly faster than the actual speed on the ground. This high-frequency slippage acts like abrasive sandpaper, physically grinding the rubber off the surface. Furthermore, without sufficient pressure to press the tire into the asphalt structure, the rubber cannot reach its ideal surface temperature, which often leads to "graining" – where cold, brittle rubber is torn off the tread.

Ultimately, choosing the aerodynamic setup is a delicate balancing act. While a high downforce setup risks "cooking" the tire through vertical pressure and internal friction, a low downforce or lift setup "shreds" the surface through slippage and instability. The search for balance is not just about lap time, but also about ensuring that the tire remains in a functional range where neither thermal blistering nor mechanical abrasion becomes the predominant failure mode. If the tire receives the "necessary, consistent load," this reduces tire wear because it remains in the optimal temperature window and does not slip (which, as already mentioned, has a destructive effect on the tread). As you can see, low load does not necessarily mean less wear, but usually the opposite. Ferrari must therefore ensure that the upside-down wing still puts enough load on the rear axle so that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and excessive tread wear does not become a problem. I assume that this is being taken into account.

I do not think the grip of the tire would be exceeded at high speed in the straights, because (1) the amount of grip required is no longer that high, compared to accelerating at the beginning or breaking at the end and (2) the floor still generates increasing levels of downforce. There is a reason why they are full throttle for almost the full straight: they are power limited at the pointm no longer grip limited.

Everything you said is absolutely correct and, if the downforce was to drop to almost zero, you would get increased degradation, but practically I think that would not happen. What could happen is that the tire gets too cold, which is a significant performance issue.

You're perfectly right that an F1 car is limited in terms of power on straights at some point, but depending on the setup (which includes downforce and suspension as well as the transmission and differential), a modern F1 car can experience micro-slippage at speeds of 160 to 190 km/h. Only then does the tire no longer need 100% of its grip (for optimal acceleration, a tire always needs a little bit of "slip," approx. 10% to 20%) to accelerate, and the phase you refer to as "power-limited" occurs.

However, this is with "normal wings." With a wing that now produces lift, micro-slippage can also occur at speeds above 200 km/h, probably up to 230 km/h, depending on the setup. So it could well lead to the higher tread wear I mentioned, probably more so than the tires cooling down too much, because they quickly return to temperature when braking.

Basically, however, I think Ferrari has considered this and designed the wing so that it does not produce too much lift. Nevertheless, there will undoubtedly be more micro-slippage than without this wing. The extent to which this will be a problem for the tires depends on the general tire treatment and, of course, on the underbody, which, as you quite rightly point out, produces more and more downforce as speed increases.

So, it's important to note that the car must be set-up and designed accordingly for this wing, whether in terms of mechanics or aerodynamics, because the underbody must provide sufficient downforce to prevent the aforementioned problem from occurring at "higher speeds"(more than the mentioned 160-190 km/h).

[matteosc]

Your third point isn't really quite right, as you're essentially equating low load with low tire wear, which is incorrect. Vertical aerodynamic load—or the lack thereof—plays a crucial role in the longitudinal wear of a tire at high speed on a straight track. The physics of this interaction focus on the relationship between vertical pressure, internal heat generation, and mechanical slip.

In a high downforce configuration, the aerodynamic surfaces of the vehicle exert increasing vertical load (F_z) as speed increases. This compresses the tire carcass, significantly increasing the contact patch. While a larger contact patch generally provides more grip, it has a significant impact on the internal structure of the tire. The constant cycle of compression and expansion at high speeds results in intense "walk work" or hysteresis. This process converts mechanical energy into thermal energy within the rubber compound.

If the downforce is too high, the core temperature can rise above the optimal operating range, leading to thermal decomposition or "blistering," where the internal bond of the rubber fails due to overheating. Essentially, excessive downforce wears the tire from the inside out through thermal stress and carcass fatigue.

Conversely, low drive or lift causes more destructive mechanical wear known as "micro-slippage." As the vehicle reaches higher speeds, the reduction in vertical load causes the car to become "light," which reduces the friction limit between the tread and the asphalt. Even if the driver does not consciously spin the wheels, the torque of the engine often exceeds the reduced adhesion values, causing the tires to rotate slightly faster than the actual speed on the ground. This high-frequency slippage acts like abrasive sandpaper, physically grinding the rubber off the surface. Furthermore, without sufficient pressure to press the tire into the asphalt structure, the rubber cannot reach its ideal surface temperature, which often leads to "graining" – where cold, brittle rubber is torn off the tread.

Ultimately, choosing the aerodynamic setup is a delicate balancing act. While a high downforce setup risks "cooking" the tire through vertical pressure and internal friction, a low downforce or lift setup "shreds" the surface through slippage and instability. The search for balance is not just about lap time, but also about ensuring that the tire remains in a functional range where neither thermal blistering nor mechanical abrasion becomes the predominant failure mode. If the tire receives the "necessary, consistent load," this reduces tire wear because it remains in the optimal temperature window and does not slip (which, as already mentioned, has a destructive effect on the tread). As you can see, low load does not necessarily mean less wear, but usually the opposite. Ferrari must therefore ensure that the upside-down wing still puts enough load on the rear axle so that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and excessive tread wear does not become a problem. I assume that this is being taken into account.

I do not think the grip of the tire would be exceeded at high speed in the straights, because (1) the amount of grip required is no longer that high, compared to accelerating at the beginning or breaking at the end and (2) the floor still generates increasing levels of downforce. There is a reason why they are full throttle for almost the full straight: they are power limited at the pointm no longer grip limited.

Everything you said is absolutely correct and, if the downforce was to drop to almost zero, you would get increased degradation, but practically I think that would not happen. What could happen is that the tire gets too cold, which is a significant performance issue.

You're perfectly right that an F1 car is limited in terms of power on straights at some point, but depending on the setup (which includes downforce and suspension as well as the transmission and differential), a modern F1 car can experience micro-slippage at speeds of 160 to 190 km/h. Only then does the tire no longer need 100% of its grip (for optimal acceleration, a tire always needs a little bit of "slip," approx. 10% to 20%) to accelerate, and the phase you refer to as "power-limited" occurs.

However, this is with "normal wings." With a wing that now produces lift, micro-slippage can also occur at speeds above 200 km/h, probably up to 230 km/h, depending on the setup. So it could well lead to the higher tread wear I mentioned, probably more so than the tires cooling down too much, because they quickly return to temperature when braking.

Basically, however, I think Ferrari has considered this and designed the wing so that it does not produce too much lift. Nevertheless, there will undoubtedly be more micro-slippage than without this wing. The extent to which this will be a problem for the tires depends on the general tire treatment and, of course, on the underbody, which, as you quite rightly point out, produces more and more downforce as speed increases.

So, it's important to note that the car must be set-up and designed accordingly for this wing, whether in terms of mechanics or aerodynamics, because the underbody must provide sufficient downforce to prevent the aforementioned problem from occurring at "higher speeds"(more than the mentioned 160-190 km/h).

Yes that makes sense. It would be interesting to know how much downforce the floor generates at those speeds. Is it something that we can estimate?

[Andi76]

I do not think the grip of the tire would be exceeded at high speed in the straights, because (1) the amount of grip required is no longer that high, compared to accelerating at the beginning or breaking at the end and (2) the floor still generates increasing levels of downforce. There is a reason why they are full throttle for almost the full straight: they are power limited at the pointm no longer grip limited.

Everything you said is absolutely correct and, if the downforce was to drop to almost zero, you would get increased degradation, but practically I think that would not happen. What could happen is that the tire gets too cold, which is a significant performance issue.

You're perfectly right that an F1 car is limited in terms of power on straights at some point, but depending on the setup (which includes downforce and suspension as well as the transmission and differential), a modern F1 car can experience micro-slippage at speeds of 160 to 190 km/h. Only then does the tire no longer need 100% of its grip (for optimal acceleration, a tire always needs a little bit of "slip," approx. 10% to 20%) to accelerate, and the phase you refer to as "power-limited" occurs.

However, this is with "normal wings." With a wing that now produces lift, micro-slippage can also occur at speeds above 200 km/h, probably up to 230 km/h, depending on the setup. So it could well lead to the higher tread wear I mentioned, probably more so than the tires cooling down too much, because they quickly return to temperature when braking.

Basically, however, I think Ferrari has considered this and designed the wing so that it does not produce too much lift. Nevertheless, there will undoubtedly be more micro-slippage than without this wing. The extent to which this will be a problem for the tires depends on the general tire treatment and, of course, on the underbody, which, as you quite rightly point out, produces more and more downforce as speed increases.

So, it's important to note that the car must be set-up and designed accordingly for this wing, whether in terms of mechanics or aerodynamics, because the underbody must provide sufficient downforce to prevent the aforementioned problem from occurring at "higher speeds"(more than the mentioned 160-190 km/h).

Yes that makes sense. It would be interesting to know how much downforce the floor generates at those speeds. Is it something that we can estimate?

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.

[matteosc]

You're perfectly right that an F1 car is limited in terms of power on straights at some point, but depending on the setup (which includes downforce and suspension as well as the transmission and differential), a modern F1 car can experience micro-slippage at speeds of 160 to 190 km/h. Only then does the tire no longer need 100% of its grip (for optimal acceleration, a tire always needs a little bit of "slip," approx. 10% to 20%) to accelerate, and the phase you refer to as "power-limited" occurs.

However, this is with "normal wings." With a wing that now produces lift, micro-slippage can also occur at speeds above 200 km/h, probably up to 230 km/h, depending on the setup. So it could well lead to the higher tread wear I mentioned, probably more so than the tires cooling down too much, because they quickly return to temperature when braking.

Basically, however, I think Ferrari has considered this and designed the wing so that it does not produce too much lift. Nevertheless, there will undoubtedly be more micro-slippage than without this wing. The extent to which this will be a problem for the tires depends on the general tire treatment and, of course, on the underbody, which, as you quite rightly point out, produces more and more downforce as speed increases.

So, it's important to note that the car must be set-up and designed accordingly for this wing, whether in terms of mechanics or aerodynamics, because the underbody must provide sufficient downforce to prevent the aforementioned problem from occurring at "higher speeds"(more than the mentioned 160-190 km/h).

Yes that makes sense. It would be interesting to know how much downforce the floor generates at those speeds. Is it something that we can estimate?

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...

[Andi76]

Yes that makes sense. It would be interesting to know how much downforce the floor generates at those speeds. Is it something that we can estimate?

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.

[johnnycesup]

What I'm really interested is how much (if any) of the drag savings is related to the absence of the DRS pillar in the middle.

[bluechris]

What I'm really interested is how much (if any) of the drag savings is related to the absence of the DRS pillar in the middle.

The wing i think works from all the simulations i have seen mostly in the center and less in the edges. With that in mind a huge bulb in the center is worse that 2 smaller ones on the edges but the more knowledge guys can chime in here.