Ferrari has equipped the SF-26 with the foldable Macarena wing. As seen in the photos shared by our friend and colleague Albert Fabrega directly from the pitlane, the Italian team is ready to test this unique solution during the first and only free practice session in Shanghai. This choice is both logical and strategic, considering the type of track layout faced over the weekend. Several questions arise: how it works, how it “doesn’t work,” and what potential advantages this feature may offer. Let’s go step by step.
Chinese GP, Ferrari SF-26: why the team chooses to test the foldable Macarena wing
Heading into the second race weekend of the season, the F1 Circus stops in Shanghai. This track is considerably different from Melbourne, where Ferrari struggled with energy management. Recent analyses of the SF-26 have highlighted both strengths and weaknesses of the Italian car.
As is now widely known, the Scuderia Ferrari team suffers from a lack of top speed on the main straights. This issue appears to be mainly caused by too rapid deployment of the energy recovered by the MGU-K motor generator. In simpler terms, this is a deficiency most noticeable during qualifying, while over the course of a 300 km race, the problem is less pronounced.
In the paddock, there has been significant discussion about the debut of the Macarena wing for the Chinese Grand Prix. The decision is closely linked to the speed deficit just mentioned. This solution, at least in theory, should help reduce the speed gap to Mercedes. The Macarena wing allows a much greater rotation of the movable flaps that rotate together.
How the Ferrari SF-26 Macarena wing “doesn’t work”
There has been a lot of speculation about how this kind of wing actually functions. For this reason, it’s important to clarify some points to avoid misunderstandings circulating online and in print media. The wing flips completely, with the trailing edge temporarily becoming the leading edge. Conversely, the leading edge becomes the trailing edge when straight-line mode is activated.
Essentially, the wing works “in reverse,” and for this reason, it cannot physically generate lift. Due to its orientation, it is possible that overpressure develops on the lower side (the “new” underside of the wing). In such a case, a vertical component could push the wing upward. Consequently, it is true that the rear of the car would be less pressed downward, but this does not translate into any real top-speed advantage.
Moreover, by lifting the rear, the frontal area of the car increases, which is disadvantageous. The Macarena wing is specifically designed to interact with the outflowing diffuser airflow, which, as we know, has a strong outwash component. It is also important to remember that in this same area, the winglet exiting from the exhaust operates.
Therefore, it is entirely misleading to think that the wing raises the rear to increase the diffuser angle and stall it. Stall is a far more complex process and cannot be recreated by a barely perceptible variation. Otherwise, any vertical movement of the floor would stall the diffuser. The Macarena wing is intended to “disrupt” the diffuser’s work, reducing floor extraction and thereby slightly lowering induced drag.
Potential advantages of the Ferrari SF-26 Macarena wing in Shanghai
Regarding the actual gains from such a solution, uncertainty remains. Only data collection during the first free practice session in Shanghai will give the team a clear picture. Without real feedback, it is difficult to quantify the effect it may generate, especially since the test on Lewis Hamilton’s car in Bahrain was only intended to verify the system’s correct operation.
While it may seem simple at first glance, the mechanism that flips the wing is quite complex, given the loads involved. For clarity, a qualitative graph of the total drag behavior during Macarena wing activation is provided, compared to a “standard” wing.
As can be seen in the image above, phase 1 remains unchanged, while the transitional phase varies. In the standard setup, the instantaneous drag peak is lower. Phase 3, the drag stabilization phase, is significantly different. A standard device reduces drag less effectively. We await free practice to make a real, precise assessment.
Leave a Reply