Engineering creativity at work
The Miami Grand Prix marked the official race debut of Ferrari’s so-called “Macarena” rear wing, along with the equivalent concept introduced by Red Bull. The final idea behind both systems is similar: when the movable rear wing flap opens, instead of simply reducing its angle of incidence, it rotates until it reaches an inverted position.
This produces a particularly positive effect in terms of drag reduction while the wing is open. Thanks to the aerodynamic flow mechanisms at the rear of the car, the wing in this position tends to stall the airflow, dramatically reducing drag.
While drag reduction has always been crucial in Formula 1, it has become even more important this season because drag no longer affects only engine power demand, but also the amount of electrical energy consumed by the hybrid system, a key factor for these new-generation cars.
Changes in some regulations, with the wording focusing mainly on the initial and final positions of the movable flap while saying very little about the transition phases, have allowed engineers to unleash their creativity. Several different rear wing opening concepts have already appeared on track, including solutions from Audi and Alpine. However, the spotlight naturally falls on the rotating-wing concepts introduced by Ferrari and Red Bull.
The two top teams are effectively tackling the same aerodynamic challenge while expressing it in very different ways, making the comparison particularly fascinating from a technical point of view.
Simple static differences
From a static perspective, the differences are relatively easy to identify. Once fully opened, the Red Bull wing creates a much larger slot gap between the rear wing main plane and the rotated flap compared to Ferrari’s version.
In theory, this could generate an even stronger drag-reduction effect than the Maranello solution. However, it is impossible to draw definitive conclusions because the effectiveness depends heavily on the rear aerodynamic flow structures of each individual car. Only the teams’ own aerodynamic analysis tools can determine which concept is truly more efficient.
Ferrari’s flap, for example, may interact more effectively with the airflow coming from the main plane and therefore achieve a cleaner aerodynamic stall. Red Bull’s solution, meanwhile, could potentially generate more lift — rather than downforce, since the flap is inverted — helping unload and stall the diffuser itself.
At this stage, these remain only theoretical possibilities.
One confirmed difference is that Ferrari partially sacrificed the efficiency of the side endplates in order to integrate the rotation mechanism inside them, gaining cleaner airflow around the wing profiles thanks to the absence of a central actuator.
Red Bull chose the exact opposite philosophy. The Milton Keynes team retained cleaner endplate surfaces but introduced a large central actuator, which inevitably creates more aerodynamic disturbance around the central airflow structures.
The transition phase is the real key
The biggest challenge with this type of rear wing is probably managing the transition phases.
Opening the wing is theoretically easier because it happens under acceleration, usually while the car is travelling down a straight. In this situation, Ferrari’s solution appears slightly more effective because the rotating wing exposes the lower side of the profile to the airflow direction, generating slightly lower form drag — an important detail considering Ferrari’s well-known power deficit.
The closing phase, however, is far more critical because it happens under braking, just before the driver enters a corner.
Every aerodynamic transition requires a certain amount of time for the airflow to stabilise again around the car. This means that between the moment the wing begins to close and the moment the driver fully regains aerodynamic downforce for corner entry, there is inevitably a delay.
For this reason, it is essential that this transition time is as short as possible, while ideally allowing aerodynamics to help slow the car down, just as older generations of Formula 1 cars benefited from DRS closure during braking.
And this is where the biggest difference between Ferrari and Red Bull emerges: the direction of rotation.
The Ferrari wing rotates by exposing the lower surface to the airflow direction, while the Red Bull solution rotates in the opposite direction, exposing the upper surface before returning to the closed position.
This creates a major aerodynamic difference.
Ferrari’s wing continues reducing drag during closure and reaches the closed position by passing through negative angles of attack. Red Bull’s wing, meanwhile, briefly behaves almost like a small parachute — simplifying the concept heavily — before positioning itself at extremely high positive angles of attack and gradually returning to its normal operating position.
In simple terms, this means airflow around the Ferrari wing stabilises only during the final stages of rotation. Managing this behaviour is not always easy, and in China it reportedly contributed to Lewis Hamilton’s spin during free practice while testing the concept.
With the Red Bull solution, however, the airflow stabilises much earlier because the wing initially passes through a high-downforce condition before progressively reducing load as it reaches the fully closed configuration.
Even though the Red Bull transition path is physically longer, both systems complete the closing motion within the same 0.4-second regulatory limit. The crucial difference is that Ferrari’s concept reaches the “useful” aerodynamic operating window only near the end of the movement, whereas the Red Bull wing begins generating aerodynamic load much earlier during the transition.
This should theoretically provide a more stable and confidence-inspiring braking phase for the driver, potentially even allowing Red Bull to delay wing closure slightly longer than Ferrari before corner entry.
Red Bull’s regulatory cleverness
From a regulatory perspective, Article C3.11.6 states that the rear wing flap must have a lower angle of incidence in the open position compared to the closed one. However, the rules say virtually nothing about the transition phase itself.
And this is likely where Red Bull’s clever interpretation comes into play.
Unlike Ferrari, which progressively reduces the wing angle before the flap inverts, Red Bull actually increases the angle of incidence during the transition before the final inverted position is reached.
Formally, the concept still remains within the regulations, even though during the transition it effectively behaves opposite to what the rule would intuitively suggest.
Conclusion: Red Bull more aggressive on the rules, Ferrari focused on the SF-26’s needs
Overall, the Red Bull solution appears significantly more aggressive from a regulatory standpoint, cleverly exploiting grey areas in typical Milton Keynes fashion while also gaining an advantage during the critical braking phase.
Ferrari, meanwhile, was the first team to introduce this concept on track and has taken a more aggressive technical route, hiding the actuator inside the wing endplate and maximising drag reduction during the opening phase.
This slightly lower drag level can help compensate for the SF-26’s well-known power deficit during acceleration. However, as explained, Ferrari pays a price during braking and corner entry transitions.
After months dominated by discussions about energy management and batteries, being able to analyse a fascinating aerodynamic battle like this genuinely feels like fresh air. And with a constant stream of upgrades expected throughout the season, it is entirely realistic to expect more technical talking points of this kind to emerge very soon.
Leave a Reply