Craig ScarboroughAt each car’s launch or at least from the grainy spy photos at shakedowns, we get our first tastes of what’s new and exciting in F1 design.
But its only at official testing that we get better access to the cars and the most interesting parts are brought out to test.
Some of the details exposed are simply neat little ideas, worthy of some investigation.
But the best bits are wholly new innovations, that we never expected to see. Here’s the Top5 technical tricks seen in F1 Bahrain testing this year.
Audi’s Sidepods
Audi are new to F1 this year, although we have to remember that the team have emerged from the existing Sauber operation.
Both Audi and Sauber have a reputation for aerodynamic innovation. So, it was a surprise given the opportunities within the new regulations, that the car at its first shakedown was quite conservative.
But the aero team gave us more surprises with the proper testing spec car, that appeared in Bahrain.
It was presented with some extraordinary sidepods, with narrow vertical inlets and expanding curved surfaces around their front.
But this aero update goes a lot deeper than just sidepods, it’s a complete aero philosophy and one that other teams haven’t followed.
With these new regulations the downforce from the floor is less powerful than the 2022-2025 spec.
What’s more is that the floor will be the sole source of downforce for a lot of the circuit, as the cars wings will be ineffective as part of the active aero in ‘straight line mode’ (SLM).
Therefore, on the straights and fast corners the floor will need to provide not only downforce, but also a reasonable aero balance front to rear.
The floor provides downforce in three keys areas; firstly, at the kick line where the diffuser starts creating a rear biased load, then at the front of the floor creating a front biased load and lastly around the floor extensions under the wakeboards, again bring a forward bias.
Looking at the rest of the grid, there’s a balanced approach to getting the downforce front and rear. Audi’s testing spec puts more emphasis on the front-end load and does this with the sidepods, floor and T-tray splitter.
To get the front of the floor working the air passing under the raised chassis needs to be turned outwards to hit the floor extensions. In my opinion the whole Audi set up is trying to do this.
Firstly, the splitter under the raised chassis features a flat-top surface with slots that direct the air outwards, as does the bib section above it, which is longer than every other team who have kept it short.
Creating the necessary outwash continues with the front floor edge, the rules allow a set of five teeth in this area – Audi’s are particularly angled to the airflow, some of this sets up the airflow under the floor towards the diffuser, the other effect is push air out laterally towards the forward quarter of the floor.
As all of this airflow passes under the floor extension and edge, it accelerates and lowers the air pressure under the car.
The come the sidepods, those unusual vertical inlets are there to allow the rest of the sidepod front to expand outwards, creating a pressure increase over the floor edge, which works with the air accelerating under the floor to create downforce.
It’s clear this is a complex and fully resolved solution to creating the aero balance Audi wanted for their first F1 car.
Whether its compromising too much for this effect remains to be seen. Especially as no other team has followed this path and indeed many have gone even further in emphasising the load created at the rear of the floor, with their sidepod undercuts and slotted diffuser walls.
Red Bull’s Intercooler
In the Power Unit regulation analysis we suggested teams might all switch to the more common water-to-air turbo charge cooler.
READ OUR COMPREHENSIVE 2026 PU ANALYSIS HERE
Images taken when the teams weren’t looking and the bodywork was off, suggests that for at least two teams the opposite was true. As air-to-air intercoolers were fitted to the engine.
As these were on two different cars with different power unit manufacturers, it might seem a random switch, but there is a design lineage between these teams, Red Bull and Aston Martin.
Air enters the turbo through the roll hoop inlet and the air filter. As its compressed it heats up and needs cooling to get the charge air density down for better combustion efficiency. As denser air packs more oxygen.
To cool this charge air, a heat exchanger is used, with the hotter charge passing through tubes to be cooled either by the outside air (air-to-air A2A) or a water jacket (water-to-air W2A).
A rule change for 2022 allowed the W2A coolers to be made by 3D printing, massively improving their efficiency from both a heat exchange perspective, but also in weight and size.
Since 2022, every team except Red Bull and their Honda power unit used W2A, leaving the two red Bull-Honda teams to fill half of their sidepods with the bulky A2A coolers.
For 2026 Red Bull have produced their own Power Unit with Ford’s assistance, while Honda switched from Red Bull to supply the Aston Martin team.
Notably with a large degree of staff switching between the two programmes and Technical Director Adrian Newey was one of them.
For 2026, the 50% – 50% split between hybrid and combustion power meant that there is a similar change in cooling requirement, needing more hybrid cooling and less for the engine along with its turbo.
In adapting to this change, many teams have altered the distribution of their heat exchangers, between the sidepods and over the engine.
Red Bull went with what was an unexpected direction. The designers agreed that the car would retain the A2A intercooler despite the different PU manufacturer and lower output.
Previously the bulky intercooler was split into two, one part in each sidepod. For the tiny sidepod aero concept the teams envisaged for the RB22, this would no longer work.
So, they turned it on its head, putting a single intercooler over the engine and shifting the hybrid cooling that used to be above the engine into the sidepods. This is a neat solution, the charge air passes out of the compressor and goes straight into the intercooler.
Creating a very short path, which helps reduces turbo lag. It then turns 180 degrees to pass into the short plenum inlets.
Air to Air intercoolers tend to be lighter and reach a lower charge air temperature, which are both attractive qualities.
Water to Air is the reverse and they have more complexity but are easier to package from an aero point of view. Red Bull’s centreline intercooler is a neat way to overcome the packaging penalties that come with a bulky A2A set up.
Given the technical staff transferring between the teams, the fact that Aston Martin appeared with the same set up should have been no surprise.
Although with some detail differences, the AMR’s Honda also has an A2A intercooler over the engine, with a similar routing between turbo and inlets.
The Power Unit homologation regulations do not include the intercooler set up, meaning that it can be changed for subsequent seasons.
Alpine’s SLM
As testing started everyone was interested to see the new Active Aero being used, with the front and rear wings switching to a low drag mode.
At the front this was something new, at the rear we thought it would just DRS 2.0, but Alpine have found a very different solution with the rear wing flattening down, rather than flipping up.
With DRS being in F1 since 2011, we had been used to seeing the rear wing flap open upwards on the straights by a hydraulic mechanism inside a pod above the wing.
DRS as an overtaking aid was dropped from the regulations for 2026, being replaced by a very different ‘Overtaking’ mode. But, the DNA of the system has been retained and extended with the Active Aero concept.
Each driver getting free use of a Drag Reduction System in certain areas of the track. This becoming known as ‘Straight Line Mode’ (SLM), while the wing in high downforce position is called ‘Corner’ mode.
F1 rear wings create drag in two key areas. Firstly, as form drag from the frontal area and then the drag induced by the wing tip vortices. For an F1 wing the induced drag is the greater penalty, these vortices being seen as vapour trails on damp days.
When DRS allowed the flap to open upwards, both the frontal area was reduced, and the flat angle of the flap reduced the tip vortices too.
The new SLM rules are more open and no longer demand either a direction for the flaps to open and no longer mandate a specific gap to be created.
Most teams retained their DRS set up with the pair of flaps, there are now two flaps allowed on the rear wing, rotating around their trailing edge with the usual DRS style pod.
Alpine and to a lesser extent Audi have gone for a different solution, the flaps lay backwards, rotating around the front edge.
Comparing the two in side elevation, the ‘DRS’ set up creates two separate wing profiles, while the Alpine has one long flat profile.
The performance difference between the two isn’t in the total change of drag, but the transient change in downforce. As DRS opens, downforce is lost as is drag, the two wing sections are spaced apart and working totally separately.
When the flap closes there is a delay in the whole wing assembly starts to create downforce again. We have seen many drivers close DRS too late and not have the downforce available to start the braking/turning for the next corner.
With the Alpine set up, the downforce and drag are also lost, but the wing assembly keeps creating some downforce as it remains one closely coupled assembly.
As the wing returns to ‘Corner’ mode, the downforce increases smoothly rather than abruptly. This may give the driver confidence to release SLM later, maintaining the top speed boost for longer.
It’s a small gain and given the edgy nature of these car’s handling, one that might be attractive to other teams their drivers.
Replicating the Alpine set up isn’t particularly difficult, but will take some time, using up valuable budget and Aero testing time.
Ferrari’s Rear end
Looking at the Ferrari at launch and initial shakedown, it was clearly a well-developed car, not appearing as radical as some of its rivals.
However, as the car arrived for the second Bahrain test it finally showed some of the clever thinking that had been going on at Maranello.
There are several features all packed around the rear end that are dramatically different to any other car.
Getting the diffuser and rear wing working is the central aim, the diffuser extensions and the exhaust blown plate work together in doing this.
Diffuser extensions
Having had huge underfloor tunnel to create downforce since 2022, the much more modest underfloor regulation for 2026 has far less performance.
Trying to recoup these loses, Ferrari has sought to exploit every part of the regulations, by expanding the diffuser vertically.
Around the rear crash structure, regulations allowing for ‘tail’ bodywork let the team extend the diffuser upwards, but only within narrow width.
The SF-26 has long extensions joined directly to the diffuser and reaching above the rear impact structure.
On its own this extension goes further than many of their rivals. As this section creates more expansion, it will also boost downforce.
Its potential drawback is that such a steep surface could be hard to keep working, as the flow will want to separate from its surface. Which leads us to the next innovation…
Exhaust blown plate
While the diffuser had been seen at the first Bahrain test, the big surprise came at the second test.
The car was a fitted with a vertical metal plate directly behind the exhaust. This plate joined the diffuser extensions and shrouded the bottom half of the exhaust tailpipe.
In conventional aero terms this set up makes no sense, but with F1’s tight restrictions it does have some logic to it.
Firstly, the set up isn’t a wing, the plate is flat and near vertical. The exhaust almost butts up against the plate with a semi-circular cap sitting below it, ensuring that that the exhaust plume is diverted upwards.
It’s this upwash that the set up is aiming for, blowing the plate and the diffuser extensions below it, will help drive airflow upwards. Largely to create more expansion through the diffuser for more downforce.
In terms of legality and copycats, this is an interesting solution. Its exploits the tail bodywork, just as with the diffuser extensions.
There is no longer a regulation stipulating a clear area behind the exhaust tailpipe, which had been previously used to prevent blown solutions such as this. The tail bodywork rules were expected to achieve this.
As they are tied to the position of the differential, in a normal position the bodywork should never reach the tailpipe exit.
By moving the entire gearbox assembly rearwards and angling the driveshafts forwards to reach the wheels, Ferrari were able get the plate installed directly behind the tailpipe exit.
Other teams are unlikely to have this layout (Haas excepted), so they cannot exploit the same solution. However, these tail bodywork rules may allow other interpretations, that we have yet to see.
Ferrari’s Revolving SLM rear wing
With the diffuser extending up to the blown plate, Ferrari have found more downforce in ‘corner’ mode. So, their final trick seen on the second day of testing was their revolving ‘Straight Line Mode’ (SLM) rear wing.
When deploying the flaps aren’t tilted but are rotated by a mechanism in the endplate. Flipping vertically and then resting flat along the straight.
In this position the flaps are separated from the main plane, then going backward and upside down.
How teams work with ‘SLM’ is explained in the Alpine section above. The Ferrari solution is another alternative allowed by the greater freedom in the 2026 rules.
It goes further than conventional DRS, as the geometry of the flap are reversed to the airflow. Quite how this gains performance is yet to be fully explained to us. A conventional DRS flap still creates some downforce and very little form and induced drag.
The inverted/reversed flap therefore should create some lift, but do not confuse lift with being low drag. The wing will still have drag from both its frontal area and tip vortices.
Being reversed, pointing sharp end first into the airflow is an unusual set up. This might bring some drag reduction from airflow separating from the wing.
Then, there’s the tip vortices, these will still create drag but will be going in the reverse direction to the vortices off the main plane.
These might cancel each other out reducing drag more than with a conventional DRS set up. It would need a 3D CFD simulation to confirm exactly how the solution works.
Fraser Masefield
