(Motorsport-Total.com) – Although Formula 1 sees itself as the spearhead of motorsport technology, the governing body strictly oversees the rules – out of concern that the performance of the cars could get out of control. Many of the smartest solutions for the new technical regulations are therefore already banned for the upcoming season or have been preemptively rejected.
Read more Formula 1 boss confident: Soon even more variety at the top
For the first time in decades, both the engine and chassis regulations were radically overhauled simultaneously. The cars appear lighter and narrower, but the power units have become many times more complex in operation due to the changed power distribution – electric motor and combustion engine now share the power almost 50:50.
A new set of rules is always an invitation for the most creative minds in the paddock. Some run into dead ends, others copy the best from the competition. The result is a rapid convergence of concepts – clearly visible with McLaren, who adopted the rotating wing principle introduced by Ferrari and Red Bull.
The “Macarena” Wing
First spotted on Ferrari’s SF-26 – although Red Bull had independently discovered the gap and was working on a similar solution – the “Macarena” wing, named by Ferrari team principal Frederic Vasseur, pursues an extreme approach to reducing drag in the new “Straightline Mode”.
In 2011, Formula 1 introduced the Drag Reduction System (DRS), where the upper element of the rear wing was flattened at designated track sections. In the new Straightline Mode, the premier class goes a step further: here, the upper elements of the front wing also flatten synchronously.
The Macarena wing cleverly exploits a gray area in the regulations. The legislator specifies exactly how quickly the transition to Straightline Mode must occur (under 0.4 seconds) but leaves completely open how the wing flap moves between the two end positions.
At Ferrari, the element folds backward and is controlled via actuators in the endplates. Red Bull and McLaren, on the other hand, use a flap that pivots forward and is operated by a central mechanism.
McLaren openly admitted to having a genuine “Why didn’t we think of this ourselves?” moment during winter testing and immediately scrapped their own development. Other teams are likely to follow – provided the development budgets under Formula 1’s strict cost cap still allow it.
The Trick Behind the Electric “Ramp-Down”
One of the perennial weak points of the new regulations is the constant charging of the battery throughout the lap – and the dilemma when the power runs out mid-drive.
To prevent cars from abruptly losing speed and causing accidents when the battery is empty, the FIA mandates a so-called “Ramp-Down” phase: the electric power must be reduced shortly before depletion in defined steps (50 kilowatts per second).
At the start of the season, several teams with Mercedes and Red Bull power deliberately triggered an emergency shutdown mode of the electric motor during qualifying. The trick: this allowed them to simply skip the annoying reduction phase.
The FIA had anticipated this scenario in advance and locked the electric motor for 60 seconds after an emergency shutdown, but the engineers easily outsmarted the system: they triggered the emergency stop just in the last meters of their fast lap, making the one-minute lockout irrelevant on the cooldown lap.
Formula 1 Fails: These Rule Changes Were a Flop
After the Japanese Grand Prix, the FIA put a stop to this practice for safety reasons.
Mercedes shortly thereafter revived the trick legally via software. On tracks with a short main straight, energy management can be configured so that drivers get full boost exiting the last corner and ease off slightly just before the finish line, enough to trick the Ramp-Down algorithm.
Getting such a maneuver perfectly timed requires meticulous simulator work. Drivers receive exact timing cues via beeps in their headphones – a method they already know from the hybrid era for determining ideal shift points.
Aston Martin’s B-Spec Car
After months of hardly any new parts for the struggling AMR26, the team brought practically a completely new B-car to the track in Hungary. Apart from the extremely experimental front suspension, it was a comprehensive aerodynamic and chassis update from nose to tail, including a lighter monocoque.
Read more Analysis: Antonelli’s aggressive driving style — and how it works
Under the hood, however, everything remained the same for now, as Honda will only supply the revised power unit in Zandvoort. The unusual arrangement of the electric motor in front of the combustion engine – a decision Adrian Newey pushed through early in development for aerodynamic reasons – thus remains.
Ferrari’s Exhaust Trick
What at first glance looks like a simple sheet metal over the exhaust pipe caused quite a stir during testing and forced the FIA to adjust the rules for the coming year: Ferrari’s air guide device. The component directs the hot exhaust gases deliberately to the underside of the rear wing and simultaneously energizes the airflow exiting the central diffuser area.
The dual benefit for downforce is enormous: the diffuser works more efficiently and the accelerated air under the rear wing creates additional suction.
That Ferrari capitalizes far more on the concept than the competition is due to the vehicle layout: the Italians have moved their differential to the maximum allowed 60 mm behind the axle line to free up additional space for the diffuser.
This is also why the competition was so upset: they could mount similar sheets over their own exhausts but simply could not use the full effect without a completely new gearbox housing and a new floor.
Mercedes’ Serrated Diffuser Extensions
As part of the upgrade package for the Canadian Grand Prix, Mercedes added serrated extensions above the diffuser on its floor. Ferrari immediately protested – pointing out that they had submitted an almost identical concept to the FIA months earlier and were rejected.
The situation in this regulatory area is tricky. Mercedes exploited a loophole in the text that allows metal rods to stiffen the floor and permits their covering to avoid sharp edges.
Ferrari ultimately prevailed with the argument that approving Mercedes’ solution would open the door to even more extreme excesses. The FIA reacted promptly and banned the practice before the Austrian race via a technical directive.
The New “Mouse Holes”
Less a true invention than a revival of an old idea from the era before the ground-effect cars of 2022/2023: targeted openings in the bodywork near the diffuser channel air from the outside of the car to the inner surfaces of the diffuser.
Formula 1 Quiz
How old was Jean-Pierre Beltoise at his first GP win?
Test yourself now in the Formula 1 quiz and compare yourself with other users
This is mainly necessary due to the prescribed inwardly curved bargeboards in front of the sidepods. The FIA wanted to reduce turbulence behind the car and make following easier.
For engineers, however, this means that the turbulence from the front wheels and suspension – which used to be guided far around the car – now flows directly along the aerodynamic surfaces into the floor. The “mouse holes” are therefore just one component of a complex strategy to smooth the flow conditions at the rear and around the rear wheels and to reduce harmful tyre squirt.
Rear Wing Extensions and the “Ladders”
Also banned for 2027 was the artificial extension of the rear wing trailing edge and support struts with small Gurney flaps. The mini spoilers provided noticeable downforce without significantly increasing drag.
A related development was the so-called “ladder flaps,” which appeared mainly on high-downforce tracks like Monaco.
These exploited the free space in the prescribed regulation box around the DRS or Straightline actuator consistently. For 2027, the FIA has significantly narrowed the construction area around the actuator to curb the wildest excesses without taking away all freedom from designers.
Read more Why Formula 1 newcomer Cadillac is not yet thinking about «fine-tuning»