Ferrari SF-26

[Farnborough]

Compared to a photo apparently taken in Melbourne, the engine cover appears to be closer to the exhaust pipe
It is also possible that one of the vertical fins of the Monza diffuser is different (red arrow), but the deformation of the image makes it difficult to confirm
https://postimages.org/

Agree, there's significant image movement in place for that Monza captured comparison.

It's "rolling shutter" geometric artifact/distortion making record of the car components as they move across the image plane. The camera looks to be static as the fence posts and wire mesh records correctly (note the posts stay vertical) in image, but with the car moving across that image it records part of it in different places through each "shutter" time duration to give that parrolellogram distortion typical of this arrangement in image device.

[Stu]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HGh4T4_XQAE ... ?name=orig

some spy shots from monza test

What is that appendix about and how is it legal?

I think that is a camera, probably being used to monitor flex in the assembly when it is rotated (it does align nicely with the rear of the crash structure); but there is no requirement for cars to run ‘legal’ during testing.

[JoeE]

[Nja]

I'm not convinced by all these claims that Red Bull's "Macarena" wing is an evolution of Ferrari's and therefore better.
First, by retaining the central actuator, it's simpler, and it's hard to believe Diego Tondi didn't consider this.
Second, if the render video below is accurate, its kinematics could lead to greater load variation during the rotation, although it remains to be seen whether a faster rotation mitigates this issue (shorter angular travel).


Finally, once deployed (and the real image confirms this), the wing's tips are no longer framed by the endplates. This could generate vortices at each profile end and thus create drag, the opposite of the intended goal.

In short, it's possible that Ferrari's solution is no less effective than Red Bull's, which would make sense given the likely longer development time it required.

[Stu]

I'm not convinced by all these claims that Red Bull's "Macarena" wing is an evolution of Ferrari's and therefore better.
First, by retaining the central actuator, it's simpler, and it's hard to believe Diego Tondi didn't consider this.
Second, if the render video below is accurate, its kinematics could lead to greater load variation during the rotation, although it remains to be seen whether a faster rotation mitigates this issue (shorter angular travel).


Finally, once deployed (and the real image confirms this), the wing's tips are no longer framed by the endplates. This could generate vortices at each profile end and thus create drag, the opposite of the intended goal.
https://postimages.org/ https://postimages.org/
In short, it's possible that Ferrari's solution is no less effective than Red Bull's, which would make sense given the likely longer development time it required.

The Ferrari rendering is totally inaccurate. It rotates around the rear wing flap edge, such that it extends almost fully behind the RW endplates.
Now that I’ve just written that, it occurs to me that using it has an affect on rear wing location (in the X-plane), as it still has to fall within the overall length allowed.

[Nja]

That's true
The axis of rotation could be located in that area (yellow dotted lines)
However, this does not affect the reflection

[zioture]

Red Bull has developed its own interpretation of the so-called “Macarena” rear wing concept first seen on Ferrari, but has taken it a step further in terms of aerodynamic aggressiveness and geometry.




The most interesting aspect is the increased vertical separation between the mainplane and flap elements, creating a much more extreme stagger compared to Ferrari’s solution. The actuation system remains centrally mounted, which indicates a more conservative packaging philosophy compared to Ferrari’s integrated endplate approach.

From an aerodynamic perspective, this configuration raises some key points:

Increased exposure of wing tips to vortical structures
Potential rise in induced drag under certain conditions
Reduced aerodynamic interference between elements
More precise control of flap angle of attack in specific operating windows

In parallel, Red Bull has also introduced significant revisions to the sidepod area, particularly in the rear section. The aim appears to be improved flow conditioning towards the diffuser and better management of the rear tyre wake.

This could be linked to reported drivability concerns, suggesting that the issue is not purely mechanical but potentially related to aerodynamic stability (variation in aero balance with ride height and speed).

The key question is whether this approach represents a net gain in efficiency or an over-exploration of a concept that Ferrari introduced in a more conservative form.

It will be interesting to see whether this specification appears in race trim or remains a test/filming-day development.

Full reference article:
https://www.newsf1.it/f1-2026-red-bull- ... e-extreme/

[Nja]

They're not exactly being cautious in claiming this is a significant advancement in aerodynamics and geometry.
I'd be more inclined to think it's an opportunistic and cost-effective compromise, quickly testable.

[Nja]

Hi everyone, in addition to what has already been seen in the Monza configuration photos, it seems to me that the t-tray is different, with an extension towards the front
https://postimages.org/

I realize that the T-tray modification isn't new, sorry

[SB15]

Red Bull has developed its own interpretation of the so-called “Macarena” rear wing concept first seen on Ferrari, but has taken it a step further in terms of aerodynamic aggressiveness and geometry.
https://www.newsf1.it/wp-content/upload ... zione2.jpg

https://www.newsf1.it/wp-content/upload ... nziona.jpg

The most interesting aspect is the increased vertical separation between the mainplane and flap elements, creating a much more extreme stagger compared to Ferrari’s solution. The actuation system remains centrally mounted, which indicates a more conservative packaging philosophy compared to Ferrari’s integrated endplate approach.

From an aerodynamic perspective, this configuration raises some key points:

Increased exposure of wing tips to vortical structures
Potential rise in induced drag under certain conditions
Reduced aerodynamic interference between elements
More precise control of flap angle of attack in specific operating windows

In parallel, Red Bull has also introduced significant revisions to the sidepod area, particularly in the rear section. The aim appears to be improved flow conditioning towards the diffuser and better management of the rear tyre wake.

This could be linked to reported drivability concerns, suggesting that the issue is not purely mechanical but potentially related to aerodynamic stability (variation in aero balance with ride height and speed).

The key question is whether this approach represents a net gain in efficiency or an over-exploration of a concept that Ferrari introduced in a more conservative form.

It will be interesting to see whether this specification appears in race trim or remains a test/filming-day development.

Full reference article:
https://www.newsf1.it/f1-2026-red-bull- ... e-extreme/

I can see many teams following the Redbull philosophy.

[nico5]

Red Bull has developed its own interpretation of the so-called “Macarena” rear wing concept first seen on Ferrari, but has taken it a step further in terms of aerodynamic aggressiveness and geometry.
https://www.newsf1.it/wp-content/upload ... zione2.jpg

https://www.newsf1.it/wp-content/upload ... nziona.jpg

The most interesting aspect is the increased vertical separation between the mainplane and flap elements, creating a much more extreme stagger compared to Ferrari’s solution. The actuation system remains centrally mounted, which indicates a more conservative packaging philosophy compared to Ferrari’s integrated endplate approach.

From an aerodynamic perspective, this configuration raises some key points:

Increased exposure of wing tips to vortical structures
Potential rise in induced drag under certain conditions
Reduced aerodynamic interference between elements
More precise control of flap angle of attack in specific operating windows

In parallel, Red Bull has also introduced significant revisions to the sidepod area, particularly in the rear section. The aim appears to be improved flow conditioning towards the diffuser and better management of the rear tyre wake.

This could be linked to reported drivability concerns, suggesting that the issue is not purely mechanical but potentially related to aerodynamic stability (variation in aero balance with ride height and speed).

The key question is whether this approach represents a net gain in efficiency or an over-exploration of a concept that Ferrari introduced in a more conservative form.

It will be interesting to see whether this specification appears in race trim or remains a test/filming-day development.

Full reference article:
https://www.newsf1.it/f1-2026-red-bull- ... e-extreme/

I don't see any of what you list as a performance advantage.
Extra drag, yes. Better control of AoA, not really. More separation, perhaps. But only in practice, not in theory, meaning Ferrari could easily achieve that by filling the RW legality box. And is that really an advantage when what you're looking to do is induce earlier separation on the mainplane?
I only see a cost and time-effective way of implementing was Ferrari has been doing without going through the pain of entirely rethinking the actuator mechanism.

[Just_a_fan]

Red Bull has developed its own interpretation of the so-called “Macarena” rear wing concept first seen on Ferrari, but has taken it a step further in terms of aerodynamic aggressiveness and geometry.
[...]

Remember that Ferrari has their exhaust flap device that Red Bull doesn't have. There will be different flows at the rear on the straights simply because of that, so one can't easily compare the solutions based just on the flap's activation method and spacing, etc..

[f1316]

Red Bull has developed its own interpretation of the so-called “Macarena” rear wing concept first seen on Ferrari, but has taken it a step further in terms of aerodynamic aggressiveness and geometry.
https://www.newsf1.it/wp-content/upload ... zione2.jpg

https://www.newsf1.it/wp-content/upload ... nziona.jpg

The most interesting aspect is the increased vertical separation between the mainplane and flap elements, creating a much more extreme stagger compared to Ferrari’s solution. The actuation system remains centrally mounted, which indicates a more conservative packaging philosophy compared to Ferrari’s integrated endplate approach.

From an aerodynamic perspective, this configuration raises some key points:

Increased exposure of wing tips to vortical structures
Potential rise in induced drag under certain conditions
Reduced aerodynamic interference between elements
More precise control of flap angle of attack in specific operating windows

In parallel, Red Bull has also introduced significant revisions to the sidepod area, particularly in the rear section. The aim appears to be improved flow conditioning towards the diffuser and better management of the rear tyre wake.

This could be linked to reported drivability concerns, suggesting that the issue is not purely mechanical but potentially related to aerodynamic stability (variation in aero balance with ride height and speed).

The key question is whether this approach represents a net gain in efficiency or an over-exploration of a concept that Ferrari introduced in a more conservative form.

It will be interesting to see whether this specification appears in race trim or remains a test/filming-day development.

Full reference article:
https://www.newsf1.it/f1-2026-red-bull- ... e-extreme/

I don’t think Ferrari’s is more conservative at all - if anything it’s the more complex engineering solution.

Now, it’s quite possible it’s *over* engineered - and Red Bull have thought of a way to get the same or better effect in a simpler form (making me think of their DRS blown beam wing in 2012 that simplified but improved on the Mercedes solution) - but that remains to be seen. If anything, the Ferrari version is more ambitious though imho.

[Nja]

Red Bull has developed its own interpretation of the so-called “Macarena” rear wing concept first seen on Ferrari, but has taken it a step further in terms of aerodynamic aggressiveness and geometry.
[...]

Remember that Ferrari has their exhaust flap device that Red Bull doesn't have. There will be different flows at the rear on the straights simply because of that, so one can't easily compare the solutions based just on the flap's activation method and spacing, etc..

You are right, this is an additional reason to remain cautious when comparing wing systems.

On that note, I think Ferrari doesn't rotate the wing profile through such a large angle without a valid reason: perhaps it's to avoid exposing the concave face of the profile to the airflow and thus limit load variations that could destabilize the car.

If even we, mere observers, can glimpse a simpler solution, how can we imagine that people of Tondi's caliber, tasked with studying this subject with the appropriate tools, haven't also considered it?

By retaining the central actuator, Red Bull cannot rotate the wing in the same direction due to the risk of interference with the mechanical control linkage.
The high final position of the profile could also result from this limitation (although this isn't certain).

In my opinion, the stability of the load and the drag of the vortices at the tips remain question marks regarding Red Bull's solution.
On the other hand, its rotation speed, lightness, cost, simplicity and opened gap from the main plane could constitute advantages compared to the Ferrari.

Reading everything that has been written on the subject, it's frustrating to see once again how easily the work of the British teams is considered to be naturally superior to that of Maranello.

Of course, only time will tell, but in the meantime, common sense can guide our intuitions, as it hopefully did for Maranello.

[nico5]

Reading everything that has been written on the subject, it's frustrating to see once again how easily the work of the British teams is considered to be naturally superior to that of Maranello.

Let them tell themselves that, while they've built a car 20kg overweight