2026 Scuderia Ferrari HP F1 Team

[proteus]

It would be a huge injustice for the Macarena wing to be banned because Red Bull aero team is incompetent.

That is some absolute bs if it happens…

Better that someone dies then? It is a matter of time when it can also happen to "competent" Ferrari. The whole movement has a much bigger delay than an ordinary wing and one little misscalculation in opening/closing time can cause a massive crash. Even for Ferrari. Remember what i wrote if it happens.

[MattLightBlue]

It would be a huge injustice for the Macarena wing to be banned because Red Bull aero team is incompetent.

That is some absolute bs if it happens…

Better that someone dies then? It is a matter of time when it can also happen to "competent" Ferrari. The whole movement has a much bigger delay than an ordinary wing and one little misscalculation in opening/closing time can cause a massive crash. Even for Ferrari. Remember what i wrote if it happens.

If the wing is legal and there is delay, then it is the rule which is not right because the max closing time can cause issues during breaking.

It would be enough to reduce the allowed closing time instead of banning the reverse wing, so that only who can adapt gets to keep it.
Anyway, it is not clear wether RBR accidents were due to closing delay or due to a gap in closed position.

[amr]

If it is due to the wing then I think is due to the way it opens.

The Ferrari one when it rotates back to close position it allows the moving element to rest on the main plane and so the wing aero load maintains it closed against the main plane backstop.

The RB wing when it rotates closed it rest against main plane center "rib" to prevent over rotation towards a classic drs wing position. Its unclear to me if the wing aero load maintains it closed or would try to rotate it back to the "parachute" position. I guess is down to where the pivot points are compare to where the wing load center of pressure is. It might be that the actuator is the one that keeps it close and not the aero load as the wing would be designed for a center of pressure that pulls the car down and therefor would want to rotate the wing towards the "parachute" position.

But the real problem with the RB design that I see is during cornering. The outside part of the wing will see extra load while the inside corner part will see less because of the end plate. In this moment the main plane center "rib" will act as a pivot point, the moving element will flex, and will open the inside corner gap and close the outside corner gap. I don't know is this decreases the down force on the inside or if it stalls the outside but the overall wing performance is reduces nevertheless.
Is not a how fast it closes is how stable it is in corner mode that is the problem. Max closed the wing a good second before he lost of the car so i don't see it as a reattachment issue.

If FIA changes the rules it should be to say that the "moving wings should rest on the main plane in close position" in which case the Ferrari macarena should be fine.

[proteus]

That is some absolute bs if it happens…

Better that someone dies then? It is a matter of time when it can also happen to "competent" Ferrari. The whole movement has a much bigger delay than an ordinary wing and one little misscalculation in opening/closing time can cause a massive crash. Even for Ferrari. Remember what i wrote if it happens.

If the wing is legal and there is delay, then it is the rule which is not right because the max closing time can cause issues during breaking.

It would be enough to reduce the allowed closing time instead of banning the reverse wing, so that only who can adapt gets to keep it.
Anyway, it is not clear wether RBR accidents were due to closing delay or due to a gap in closed position.

Yes, it depends of the cause. If RBR made it problematic themself, then it is their job to rectify it or go back to standard. If the whole concept is potentionally dangerous then it should be banned alltogether, even if it was greenlit before real time consequences were spotted.

I was sceptical of active aero alltogether and i was hoping we would get standard wings in this rule change.

And i am afraid that we will see a massive crash due to active aero fault sooner or later.

[FDD]

It would be a huge injustice for the Macarena wing to be banned because Red Bull aero team is incompetent.

That is some absolute bs if it happens…

Better that someone dies then? It is a matter of time when it can also happen to "competent" Ferrari. The whole movement has a much bigger delay than an ordinary wing and one little misscalculation in opening/closing time can cause a massive crash. Even for Ferrari. Remember what i wrote if it happens.

What if brake failure happen...

[IntrinsicVoid]

At this point I don’t know why they just don’t switch to Lego race cars and call it a day..

[proteus]

That is some absolute bs if it happens…

Better that someone dies then? It is a matter of time when it can also happen to "competent" Ferrari. The whole movement has a much bigger delay than an ordinary wing and one little misscalculation in opening/closing time can cause a massive crash. Even for Ferrari. Remember what i wrote if it happens.

What if brake failure happen...

If they are designed to be prone for a malfunction then yes, ban the design of those brakes.

As someone added: they need to study why RBR had those incidents. If it is only their design, then they need to solve it themself. If the solution is dangerous by itself alone, then it is time to rethink if it should still be legal. Is this really so hard to understand? Not every critique means an assault on a team on the grid.

I am strongly against an active aero alltogether...

[FDD]

Better that someone dies then? It is a matter of time when it can also happen to "competent" Ferrari. The whole movement has a much bigger delay than an ordinary wing and one little misscalculation in opening/closing time can cause a massive crash. Even for Ferrari. Remember what i wrote if it happens.

What if brake failure happen...

If they are designed to be prone for a malfunction then yes, ban the design of those brakes.

As someone added: they need to study why RBR had those incidents. If it is only their design, then they need to solve it themself. If the solution is dangerous by itself alone, then it is time to rethink if it should still be legal. Is this really so hard to understand? Not every critique means an assault on a team on the grid.

I am strongly against an active aero alltogether...

Regarding active aero, I am aginst too

[WardenOfTheNorth]

Better that someone dies then? It is a matter of time when it can also happen to "competent" Ferrari. The whole movement has a much bigger delay than an ordinary wing and one little misscalculation in opening/closing time can cause a massive crash. Even for Ferrari. Remember what i wrote if it happens.

What if brake failure happen...

If they are designed to be prone for a malfunction then yes, ban the design of those brakes.

As someone added: they need to study why RBR had those incidents. If it is only their design, then they need to solve it themself. If the solution is dangerous by itself alone, then it is time to rethink if it should still be legal. Is this really so hard to understand? Not every critique means an assault on a team on the grid.

I am strongly against an active aero alltogether...

Ferrari have not had any issues with their design. It would therefore be unfair to ban their design just because another team introduce a different desing that is potentially flawed.

[sucof]

I repeated so many times:
Why not allow flexible wings, instead of active aero??
Much less complex, much more reliable.
Just allow more flexing than is currently in the regs. But have an upper limit of course.

[WardenOfTheNorth]

Yeah, I ha
d the same concern - it’s the type of thing you can imagine them doing.

It wouldn’t make a lot of sense because (a) the regular “DRS style” wing can also fail and used to more frequently in the early days (it took a bit of time to iron out all the bugs) (b) it’s in the FIA’s interest for teams to reduce drag as much as possible (in order to make up for the lack of battery power).

If they do ban then I would quit Formula 1. Better they start giving out the cars along with engines line in F2 and F3. Also there is a bias clearly seen against some set of teams and their innovations even though they are deemed legal. Point to note that RB rear wing started failing only after they started reducing weight. We can speculate but RB team did not take into account the aero load on the rear wing

Ferrari also spent a lot more time testing and refining their design before committing to the wing for a race weekend, if I recall Red Bull tested theirs in Miami and used it there too, admittedly they could be testing a lot more behind the scenes but just from what I have seen on track.

It does also function slightly differently so it should be the FIA having a word with Red Bull on their specific design, don't want this to happen to any driver, luckily for Max it has failed when there has been significant run off.

Red Bull had it on the car for at least part of a filming day at Silverstone.

[WardenOfTheNorth]

I repeated so many times:
Why not allow flexible wings, instead of active aero??
Much less complex, much more reliable.
Just allow more flexing than is currently in the regs. But have an upper limit of course.

More expensive and complex to develop and harder to police.

[djones]

Hamilton nearly crashed in the last but one race due to having to manually close the wing. I'm not that against banning it as the drivers will probably like the balance and consistency of the car more anyway.

The root cause to all this ridiculous active aero is the even more ridiculous PU rules.

Go back to the car rules of 2021, but with N/A V10 engines. At that point the actual racing does not even have to be spectacular for the show to be enjoyable. Even just watching one car drive around would be fun. Make it so all 3 compounds need to be used in the race... job done.

[dans79]

I repeated so many times:
Why not allow flexible wings, instead of active aero??
Much less complex, much more reliable.
Just allow more flexing than is currently in the regs. But have an upper limit of course.

Because flexible wings can even come close to the amount of drag reduction active aero can.

[sucof]

I repeated so many times:
Why not allow flexible wings, instead of active aero??
Much less complex, much more reliable.
Just allow more flexing than is currently in the regs. But have an upper limit of course.

More expensive and complex to develop and harder to police.

Wow... the complete opposite is true!
You think letting wings flex, as they always did and do, so it already works and exists, is more complicated and expensive than develop and electronic, electro or hydraulic mechanical system???
Did you ever do any engineering?
Also, flexing wings is a lot easier to model and predict aerodynamically, than mechanical ones. Hence cheaper too.
And safer, as it is demonstrated with the crashes lately...