Temporada F1 2026 🏎

[llumia]

Aston Martin nightmare continues as Honda problems limit test run plan

Aston Martin's nightmare continued on the final day of F1 2026 pre-season testing, with problems leaving its AMR26 stranded in the garage and a shortage of parts meaning it can only do "very limited" mileage anyway.

The Silverstone-based squad has had a troubled start to its 2026 preparations, where it has battled a lack of performance and reliability issues throughout early running.

It lost three hours of running on Thursday after Fernando Alonso suffered a battery-related issue that stopped him on track.

Things did not got better on Friday morning, as it failed to make it out of the pits with its AMR26 in the opening hour.

With Lance Stroll at the wheel, the car was fired up in the garage early on, but a suspected problem forced the team to abandon running and work on fixing whatever it was not happy with.

But the wider difficulties the team is in have been laid bare by engine supplier Honda.

The Japanese manufacturer said that in the wake of what it learned from the stoppage on Thursday, allied to how many parts it has burned through this week, the team at best can only complete a compressed programme on the final day.

A statement from Honda said that in the wake of Alonso's battery-related problem: "We have been carrying out simulations on the test bench in HRC Sakura. Due to this and a shortage of power unit parts, we have adapted today's run plan to be very limited and consist only of short stints."

Aston Martin team representative Pedro de la Rosa later spoke to F1 TV and said when the car did re-appear it would have 30-minute gaps between stints.

"They will be short and they will be separated by a minimum of half an hour," de la Rosa confirmed. "It will allow us to really look into the data and be able to test some things in these few runs.

"We will not be doing long runs today, for sure."

Aston Martin has not had the week it needed to get itself in good shape for the start of the season, having already had a challenging time in the first Bahrain test.

It is currently bottom of the mileage charts for this week, having completed just 122 laps. This is well adrift of the 301 laps that Mercedes had completed up until Thursday night.

Fernando Alonso was quite clear on Thursday that Aston Martin's problems were not small.

"There are many things we need to fix, but I know everyone at the track and at the campus is working at 100% capacity to find solutions," he said.

Charles Leclerc continued Ferrari's encouraging run in testing in the opening hour on Friday as he topped the times from Kimi Antonelli's Mercedes and Oscar Piastri's McLaren.

Haas's Esteban Ocon raised some eyebrows as he started a stint with intermediate tyres on the dry track – but it is understood he was doing an experiment of partial aero modes to check ride heights when in a specific active-aero mode where only the front wing is allowed to open.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/aston-martin-nightmare-continues-as-honda-problems-limit-test-run-plan/

[llumia]

The disastrous Honda F1 spiral that Aston Martin's now trapped in

Aston Martin and Honda have had nothing short of a disastrous start to 2026 with a Formula 1 pre-season beset by persistent technical problems.

The new partnership has started in a manner worryingly similar to Honda's last F1 nightmare with McLaren in 2017, the last season of that failed three-year union.

Honda's engine is down on power and efficiency and is also encountering various problems across the internal combustion engine and battery.

As with 2017 its engine has managed the lowest mileage count by a long way and its works team is lagging well behind rivals.

The problem is a negative spiral for Honda that Aston Martin's been trapped in across this test, but began in Spain.

Aston Martin's car was finished late and it only completed its first shakedown laps at the end of the penultimate day of that test, then had restricted running on the final day.

As reliability problems have continued, and fresh ones emerged, in Bahrain the car has spent significant amounts of time in the garage not logging vital laps.

This kicks off a hugely problematic cycle: Honda suffers a problem, which costs mileage and vital learning, so they cannot make enough progress and when the car goes back out, another problem is suffered. Then it repeats.

The upshot is just over 240km per day completed on average across eight-and-a-half days of possible testing.

This is at least better than Honda's abysmal, delayed start to the V6 turbo-hybrid era the first time around in 2015 when it was limited to 145.75km per day on average.

But it is almost identical to 2017, when Honda averaged 247.5km per day and the poor reliability and performance of that year's engine led to McLaren ending the partnership.


To put it in a 2026 context, a Mercedes-engined car manages just over 600km a day on average based on the 8.5 days of testing so far while Ferrari almost hits 600km per day as well and Red Bull (570km) and Audi (540km) are in a similar ballpark.

This will look even worse by the end of Friday. A troubled test programme is reaching a limp conclusion in Bahrain, where Honda has had to drastically limit the team's mileage on the final day after an engine problem that occurred on Thursday.

Aston Martin only completed two installation laps at the end of the first four-hour session on day three, after Honda conducted analysis and test bench work at its Sakura R&D facility in Japan to establish what kind of run plan might be feasible.

This is due to a shortage of engine parts - with one suggestion even being that Honda is down to its last battery on-site - that means Honda has to be very careful to avoid a final, terminal problem.

Very limited runs of short stints with at least half an hour downtime between those runs are expected in the second half of the day.

It is badly holding back the team and engine side. There is so much to learn with the new car and engine rules that this much missing mileage puts a huge limitation on tapping into whatever potential is in the package.

There is reduced opportunity to understand the car - which is an aggressive Adrian Newey-led design - but even more importantly at the moment to work out the most effective energy management strategies.

Teams have found significant performance in optimising their battery charging and deployment around the lap with the new engines and increased capacity MGU-K, with one manufacturer thinking it is worth around half a second minimum compared to where they started in Barcelona.

Aston Martin, Honda and the two drivers are therefore lagging well behind others in understanding what techniques and mapping are required – let alone where Honda's weaknesses in these areas truly lie and to what extent.

Part of the reason this has happened is this is not the same Honda technical operation that recovered from such a miserable three years with McLaren and grew into a title-winning force with Red Bull until recently.

Its (aborted) withdrawal from F1 meant around 18 months of downtime from the end of 2021 to the spring of 2023 when the Aston Martin deal was announced, as a relative skeleton team kept up to date with F1's 2026 rules but there was nothing like the active development other manufacturers had undertaken in this period.

That delay, and the wholesale changes within Honda's F1 division as a result of its initial withdrawal, means it has started almost from scratch in these rules in an operational sense, not just a technical one.

A terrible testing period is the consequence. The immediate priority is to establish a baseline level of reliability to complete laps and simply target finishing the season opener in Australia.

Only then can Honda and Aston Martin really know how much of a problem they will carry into the season, and what kind of recovery is possible in the short-term.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/the-disastrous-honda-f1-spiral-that-aston-martins-now-trapped-in/

[llumia]

F1 testing results: Fastest times + total laps from 2026 pre-season


Fastest laps by team
1 Ferrari 1m31.992s
2 Mercedes 1m32.803s (+0.811s)
3 McLaren 1m32.861s (+0.869s)
4 Red Bull 1m33.109s (+1.117s)
5 Alpine 1m33.421s (+1.429s)
6 Haas 1m33.487s (+1.495s)
7 Audi 1m33.755s (+1.763s)
8 Racing Bulls 1m34.149s (+2.157s)
9 Williams 1m34.342s (+2.350s)
10 Cadillac 1m35.290s (+3.298s)
11 Aston Martin 1m35.974s (+3.982s)


Total laps/km by team
1 Mercedes 432 laps/2337km
2 Racing Bulls 407 laps/2202km
3 Haas 404 laps/2186km
4 McLaren 395 laps/2137km
5 Williams 368 laps/1991km
6 Alpine 359 laps/1942km
7 Audi 357 laps/1932km
8 Red Bull 329 laps/1780km
9 Ferrari 324 laps/1753km
10 Cadillac 266 laps/1439km
11 Aston Martin 128 laps/692km

Total laps/km by driver
1 Lindblad 240 laps/1298km
2 Russell 235 laps/1271km
3 Piastri 222 laps/1201km
4 Ocon 205 laps/1109km
5 Verstappen 204 laps/1104km
6 Leclerc 202 laps/1093km
7 Bearman 199 laps/1076km
8 Antonelli 197 laps/1066km
9 Sainz 196 laps/1060km
10 Hulkenberg 186 laps/1006km
11 Colapinto 180 laps/974km
12 Gasly 179 laps/968km
13 Norris 173 laps/936km
14 Albon 172 laps/930km
15 Bortoleto 171 laps/925km
16 Lawson 167 laps/903km
17 Perez 135 laps/730km
18 Bottas 131 laps/708km
19 Hadjar 125 laps/676km
20 Hamilton 122 laps/660km
21 Alonso 96 laps/519km
22 Stroll 32 laps/173km

Total laps/km by engine
1 Mercedes 1554 laps/8410km
2 Ferrari 994 laps/5379km
3 RBPT 736 laps/3983km
4 Audi 357 laps/1932km
5 Honda 128 laps/692km

Combined: Total pre-season running by team
1 Mercedes 6193km
2 Haas 6095km
3 Ferrari 6090km
4 McLaren 5759km
5 Racing Bulls 5458km
6 Alpine 5289km
7 Red Bull 5048km
8 Audi 4966km
9 Williams 4275km
10 Cadillac 3935km
11 Aston Martin 2111km

Total pre-season running by engine
1 Mercedes 21,515km
2 Ferrari 16,121km
3 RBPT 10,506km
4 Audi 4966km
5 Honda 2111km


https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/f1-testing-results-fastest-times-total-laps-from-2026-pre-season/

[llumia]

What happened on the last day of 2026 pre-season F1 testing


Charles Leclerc ensured Ferrari ended testing for Formula 1's all-new 2026 rules era on top with a series of fastest times of all on the final day of pre-season running in Bahrain.

Having been fastest at the end of the day's first session, Leclerc remained at the top of the times throughout the final four hours of running too as teams dedicated much of their late-day programmes to single-lap runs.

Leclerc, who completed 132 laps for the day, ultimately worked his way down to a 1m31.992s on the softer C4 tyre on a programme that started with push laps on the mid-range C3.

That was 2.6 seconds away from Carlos Sainz's best time from pre-season testing at the same track in 2025, the final season of the previous ground effect era.

Leclerc's lead at the top of the times was a considerable 0.879s, though the fact he was on the C4 accounted for some of this advantage over McLaren driver Lando Norris, on the C3 tyre, who like third- and fourth-fastest Max Verstappen and George Russell, switched attention to longer runs inside the final hour of the session.

McLaren did miss the first two hours of the second session, with Norris restricted to 47 laps after taking over from Oscar Piastri.

Verstappen and Russell set their fastest times - which were both more than a second off Leclerc's best - on the C3-equivalent test tyre that Pirelli brings to testing for control purposes.

While the top four teams appear to have a sizeable advantage at the start of this rules era, the identity of who is at the head of the chasing pack is harder to gauge.

Alpine ended the test fifth fastest, with Pierre Gasly's 1m33.421s on the softest C5 tyre late on moving him just ahead of Ollie Bearman - though prior to that the Haas driver had been around three tenths ahead of Gasly when the pair had both set laps on the C4 tyre.

Audi's gently encouraging second test ended with Gabriel Bortoleto setting the seventh-fastest time of the day late on. Like Norris, his start to the afternoon session was delayed but he ended up completing 71 laps with a main focus on long runs before a late switch to a qualifying simulation at the end of the day.

Arvid Lindblad racked up the highest individual tally of laps for a driver on any single day of pre-season testing, completing 165 laps for Racing Bulls.

Carlos Sainz rounded out the top 10 for Williams but was 2.3s off the pace despite setting his best time on the C5 tyre.

Cadillac managed its best time of the the Bahrain fortnight on the final afternoon as Valtteri Bottas worked his way down to a 1m35.290s, which was 3.298s off Leclerc's benchmark.

Aston Martin's well-documented struggles arguably hit their nadir on the final day; engine partner Honda said early on Friday that the team's mileage would have to be limited, and Lance Stroll completed just six laps all day in the AMR26 - with Aston Martin announcing more than two hours before the end of the test that it had concluded its programme.

Test two day three times
1 Charles Leclerc (Ferrari) 1m31.992s, 132 laps
2 Lando Norris (McLaren) 1m32.871s, 47 laps
3 Max Verstappen (Red Bull) 1m33.109s, 65 laps
4 George Russell (Mercedes) 1m33.197s, 82 laps
5 Pierre Gasly (Alpine) 1m33.421s, 118 laps
6 Ollie Bearman (Haas) 1m33.487s, 88 laps
7 Gabriel Bortoleto (Audi) 1m33.755s, 71 laps
8 Kimi Antonelli (Mercedes) 1m33.916s, 49 laps
9 Arvid Lindblad (Racing Bulls) 1m34.149s, 165 laps
10 Carlos Sainz (Williams) 1m34.342s, 141 laps
11 Oscar Piastri (McLaren) 1m34.352s, 66 laps
12 Esteban Ocon (Haas) 1m34.494s, 82 laps
13 Isack Hadjar (Red Bull) 1m34.511s, 59 laps
14 Valtteri Bottas (Cadillac) 1m35.290s, 38 laps
15 Nico Hulkenberg (Audi) 1m36.019s, 64 laps
16 Sergio Perez (Cadillac) 1m40.842s, 61 laps
17 Lance Stroll (Aston Martin) no time, 6 laps

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/what-happened-on-the-last-day-of-2026-pre-season-f1-testing/

[llumia]

Bahrain F1 2026 test two winners and losers

That's it: pre-season for the 2026 Formula 1 season, featuring potentially the biggest-ever change of regulations, is complete.

So who had a strong second week in Bahrain, and who - in addition to the one obvious candidate - is on the back foot ahead of the Australian Grand Prix season opener in a fortnight's time?

Here's our pick of winners and losers after learning more and more about these drastically different cars:

Loser: Aston Martin

Aston Martin is in dire shape heading to the start of the season, after a Bahrain testing fortnight that has not only fallen short of expectations, but that is difficult to imagine having gone much worse.

Ongoing reliability problems with the Honda power unit - especially on the battery front - left it struggling for miles, and it is far from getting any proper read on what its AMR26 car is capable of.

Completing just six laps on the final day was a disaster, and Aston Martin now faces the risk of being put under pressure from newcomer Cadillac at the start of the season.

Worst of all is that time is out to get on top of its repeated breakages away from competition, as the next time the car runs will be in Melbourne. - Jon Noble

Winner: Ferrari

Ferrari ending winter testing on top by eight tenths of a second is a mostly meaningless statistic. But in the context of Ferrari's underwhelming 2025, it having missed the compression ratio loophole, and the 'spec A car' strategy of starting basic then upgrading being at odds with what key rivals such as McLaren were planning, this has been a very encouraging winter.

The car clearly has pace and the 'bring upgrades later' plan included genuinely radical tricks like the rear wing that flips upside down. Plus Ferrari's getting off the line in practice starts much better than a lot of its main opponents, which could be very important if starts are as wild as expected in the early rounds.

It's certainly not favourite, but it's somewhere in the frontrunning mix. - Matt Beer

Winner: F1 (ingenuity is alive and well)

F1's all-new regulations were always going to offer the opportunity for teams to exploit some grey areas.

Heading into the final test, the biggest talking point about rules interpretation had revolved around compression ratios.

But Ferrari changed all that on the middle day with one of the most eye-opening design ideas we have seen for a while: its upside down rear-wing.

While it was officially labelled as a test item, so may never appear at a race, what was so welcome about it was it showed that room for leftfield thinking and ingenuity remains a cornerstone of F1. - JN

Losers: Mercedes' rivals

The arguments over the compression ratio engine rules loophole have been going on as a parallel off-track contest throughout pre-season testing. And as is often the case in pre-season testing, they've ended with a deceptive 'winner'.

The eventual compromise on the table in the vote that will be settled next week is a new mid-season form of testing that Mercedes thinks it'll pass fine anyway and that ironically might require its rivals to do more legwork and extra development in order to meet and stay competitive. - MB

Winner: Haas

Third in the mileage charts for test two, and the best-placed of all the Ferrari-powered teams in that regard.

But it's also in the performance stakes where things look encouraging for Haas. It's sixth in the headline times, so slap bang in the middle, but appeared to be marginally ahead of Alpine on the final day prior to Pierre Gasly's late-ish run on the softest C5 compound that jumped him ahead of Haas's Ollie Bearman.

Whichever way round Haas ends up in that particular squabble (and for what it's worth the consensus does seem to have it ahead), it does seem as though those two teams are leading the midfield pack. And when you remember that this is probably F1's least-well-resourced team, that would be a seriously impressive place for Haas to start this rules cycle in. - Jack Cozens

Loser: Williams

You have to wonder how much worse Williams's situation would look if Aston Martin's disasterclass wasn't in such plain sight.

For all the gentle encouragement of completing the joint-most laps of any team in week one in Bahrain, as it played catch up after skipping the Barcelona 'shakedown', all the available evidence from week two suggests that performance-wise, the Williams - a 2026 car carrying some degree of expectation on its shoulders - is nothing to write home about.

The performance runs have caught the eye for the wrong reasons: conducted on softer tyres than those around Alex Albon/Carlos Sainz, yet way off the sort of position you'd expect that offset to lift them to, even with some conservatism over fuel loads factored in.

And of the limited data we do have on the FW48's long runs, my colleague Val Khorounzhiy sums it up best by describing it as uninspiring. - JC

Winner: Cadillac

A Ferrari-powered hat-trick, as F1's newest team also makes the cut in our picks of winners from week two of Bahrain testing.

OK, in mileage terms - and that is a very important measure for Cadillac at the start of its F1 journey - there was actually a step backwards: 266 laps completed in week two versus 320 laps in week one.

But any of the worst fears about where Cadillac might be performance-wise in 2026 seem destined to not be realised. Valtteri Bottas's 1m35.290s on the final day was 3.3s adrift of the best time, yes, but it's nowhere near 'cut adrift' territory. It's not even last-place territory right now. It wouldn't even have been close to 107% territory based on 2025 Bahrain qualifying. (Cadillac is more than two seconds up on that cutoff time.)

Sure, the fact it could genuinely be ahead of one rival at the season opener says a lot more about that team's struggles than anything else. But if this level is anything like the reality to expect from Cadillac, then this is an unimaginably good starting point for a team that one year ago still didn't officially have the green light to join F1. - JC

Winner: Common sense

After the safety concerns that erupted over starts at the first Bahrain test, it would have been all too easy for F1 to do nothing or for the issue to become a political battleground.

But in a welcome breakout of common sense, the teams and the FIA not only implemented a good solution - but one that helped to add some spice to the test.

The extra five-second notice prior to the light sequence beginning has put to bed the worst fears over starts being tricky, and means F1 drivers can head to Melbourne more at ease about things.

The testing of the new start procedures in Bahrain has also highlighted that Ferrari - which has honed its engine concept around a short sequence - has not been hurt by the change.

The rapid practice getaways of Lewis Hamilton in particular have shown that Ferrari could have an edge in the run to the first corner. - JN

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/f1-2026-bahrain-test-two-winners-losers/

[llumia]

F1 test long-run analysis: Piastri wins 'race', Audi surprises

Formula 1 pre-season testing for 2026 concluded in Bahrain with another smattering of race simulations, with virtually every team having attempted some clear grand prix-like running at some point during the six days in Sakhir.

Programmes differed hugely across the board, as they do, and some race simulation plans either went unrealised or were interrupted.

What data we do have is plentiful but, as always in testing, extremely caveated.

Some ran in the morning, some in the afternoon; some two hours earlier, some two hours later; some two-stopped, some three-stopped, some caught a red flag; and some didn't hit anywhere near the grand prix lap count, making it fair to wonder what fuel level they really started at - which is before you even think of engine modes, energy delivery strategies and the likes of.

However, here's what we have from the final day - and how it fits into the overall picture from the test.

Race runs (or similar)
Lando Norris, McLaren
Start: 6.04pm
Stint 1: C3, 10 laps (1m39.079s avg)
Stint 2: C2, 15 laps (1m38.344s avg)

Gabriel Bortoleto, Audi
Start: 5.13pm
Stint 1: C3, 12 laps (1m40.790s avg)
Stint 2: C2, 23 laps (1m39.987s avg)
Stint 3: C1, 10 laps (1m37.909s avg)
Stint 4: C3, 5 laps (1m36.908s avg)

Ollie Bearman, Haas
Start: 3.28pm
Stint 1: C3, 14 laps (1m41.239s avg)
Stint 2: C1, 22 laps (1m40.779s avg)
Stint 3: C2, 19 laps (1m38.987s avg)

Arvid Lindblad, Racing Bulls
Start: 3.24pm
Stint 1: C3, 12 laps (1m41.219s avg)
Stint 2: C2, 21 laps (1m41.285s avg)
Stint 3: C2, 19 laps (1m39.710s avg)

Carlos Sainz, Williams
Start: 3.24pm
Stint 1: C3, 13 laps (1m42.335s avg)
Stint 2: C2, 14 laps (1m41.375s avg)

Sergio Perez, Cadillac
Start: 12.23pm
Stint 1: C3, 14 laps (1m43.264s avg)
Stint 2: C2, 17 laps (1m42.439s avg)
Stint 3: C1, 15 laps (1m41.690s avg)*

Esteban Ocon, Haas
Start: 12.21pm
Stint 1: C3, 12 laps (1m41.111s avg)
Stint 2: C2, 22 laps (1m40.292s avg)
Stint 3: C1, 21 laps (1m40.098s avg)*

Charles Leclerc, Ferrari
Start: 11.20am
Stint 1: C3, 10 laps (1m39.039s avg)
Stint 2: C2, 13 laps (1m38.682s avg)
Stint 3: C3, 12 laps (1m37.757s avg)**
Stint 4: C2, 13 laps (1m37.139s avg)

outlier lap deleted
** stint interrupted by Antonelli red flag (then continued)

Norris's two-stint run is fairly impressive, but has to be taken with the caveat that McLaren will have known he won't have enough time left in the session to do the full race - so didn't have to fuel his car up with the full race load, but still could have.

The waters are muddied for Leclerc's run, too, despite a greater sample size, as he ran at a different time to most and, like team-mate Lewis Hamilton the day before, completed four stints. Like Hamilton, he too had his simulation interrupted by a red flag.

Accounting for that, his run is well within the margin of error from all those factors when compared to what Oscar Piastri and Max Verstappen put together the day prior. It is entirely plausible that those teams are all close, but also equally plausible that the morning conditions undersold the potency of Leclerc's run.

The midfield teams are clearly cut adrift, but have laid down enough markers to suggest a good fight of their own.

Haas has been the consensus pick as F1's fifth-best this week, and Esteban Ocon and Ollie Bearman both completed final-day race runs (fairly analogous ones, too), which compared favourably to Arvid Lindblad's in the Racing Bulls but surprisingly not very favourably to Gabriel Bortoleto's in the Audi.

Bortoleto might have run at a more advantageous time, but the Audi was also notably quick in race trim in Nico Hulkenberg's hands the day before. It apparently doesn't inspire much confidence from trackside, but it could be a sneaky-good car.

There is no race sim from Alpine (though presumably it's right there in the Audi-Haas ballpark) and no full one from Williams, though the two consecutive stints Carlos Sainz did do were uninspiring to say the least.

Cadillac is adrift but got the race distances in. And while Aston Martin should be marginally quicker than that, its bigger worry right now is actually completing a race distance rather than how fast it can cover one.

To put the data from Thursday and Friday into context, here's a 'simulated' 52-lap race between every driver who did more than consecutive two race stints - with no start lap, inlap and outlap.

Many of these did not reach 52 laps, so their race time will be filled out with the equivalent number of laps based on their total average. This is not necessarily right - the further into a race you go, the quicker you are due to fuel load, tyres dependant - but it seems like the simplest way to do it.

For drivers who did four stints, an extra 23 seconds will be added as hypothetical time lost in pits.

1 Piastri (McLaren)
2 Leclerc (Ferrari) +3.170s
3 Verstappen (Red Bull) +8.849s
4 Hamilton (Ferrari) +16.029s
5 Bortoleto (Audi) +1m11.166s
6 Bearman (Haas) +1m36.857s
7 Ocon (Haas) +1m39.878s
8 Lawson (Racing Bulls) +1m44.705s
9 Lindblad (Racing Bulls) +1m54.678s
10 Bottas (Cadillac) +3m20.403s
11 Perez (Cadillac) +3m25.780s

Cutting off the 'race' at the 23-lap mark, at which Alonso stopped, accounts for the two-stint cars as follows:

Norris 1st of 15
Hulkenberg 8th
Sainz 12th
Alonso 14th

The Mercedes elephant in the room

The Mercedes W17 was the race simulation standout of week one, but favoured a different kind of long-running across these days - usually beginning with a push lap on the set, then either a double-cool or a return to the pits, then a long run.

On Friday, there was no representative Mercedes run of 10 laps or longer. But the team flexed its long-run muscles to some extent, logging the following sequences of between nine and seven laps across the day.

Antonelli - 1m36.856s avg
Antonelli - 1m37.032s avg
Antonelli - 1m37.363s avg
Russell - 1m38.316s avg
Russell - 1m37.785s avg
Russell - 1m37.348s avg
Russell - 1m36.667s avg
Russell - 1m36.171s avg

That last Russell race run is a clear standout that compares favourably to any end-of-race effort by any team in any of the race simulations.

But we will have to wait until Melbourne to see what the Mercedes really looks like over a race distance.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/long-run-analysis-piastri-wins-race-audi-surprises/

[llumia]

Who are the winners and losers from F1 pre-season testing?[/i]

By
Andrew Benson
F1 Correspondent
Published
3 hours ago

The final pre-season test confirmed there will be a new Formula 1 when the 2026 season starts in Australia in two weeks' time.

New in the sense of who is at the front - and new in terms of many aspects of the sport and how it works.

So what did the last three days of running in Bahrain, before the teams decamp to Albert Park in Melbourne, say about the reshaped sport - and who are the winners and losers within that?

A best guess at the competitive order

Ferrari's Charles Leclerc ended the test with the single fastest lap time in an emphatic way - 0.811 seconds quicker than the next best time, set by Mercedes' Kimi Antonelli.

Headline times in testing are usually not the place to look to gauge the competitive order, but this did reflect the picture in one important way - Mercedes and Ferrari look like they are going into the new season in the best shape.

Andrea Stella, team principal of world champions McLaren, said on Friday evening: "This test has confirmed that Ferrari and Mercedes look like the teams to beat. McLaren and Red Bull [are] probably very similar, Ferrari and Mercedes a step ahead."

This picture, an impression reflected by many other senior figures up and down the pit lane, comes less from the headline lap times - even if they did show the teams in the order Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Red Bull - than the so-called race-simulation runs.

Because the teams fill up their cars with fuel and run a grand prix distance, these have far fewer variables to muddy the picture than single laps.

On Friday evening, Leclerc did the best race simulation of the week, slightly quicker than Red Bull's Max Verstappen and McLaren's Oscar Piastri the day before, when they set more or less exactly the same time.

Mercedes did not do any race simulations in the second week, only in the first, when track conditions were up to a second slower.

Antonelli set comfortably the fastest race simulation of the first week - a lot faster than Piastri, who was running at the same time.

And his team-mate George Russell - the bookies' pre-season championship favourite - was also impressively quick when running in the hotter, slower conditions earlier in the day.

This is not an exact science, but the cumulation of data is what led to the conclusion reached by Stella and many others.

A complication was that McLaren were not running the latest specification of Mercedes power-unit, which Mercedes were proving out, so can expect an uplift when they switch in Australia to the latest spec.

Another is Red Bull's new engine is said by Russell to have the best deployment of energy, which is such an important facet this season.

Mercedes' biggest concern is reliability. This hit Antonelli much more than Russell, but it's probably fair to say that Mercedes suffered more problems than their major rivals, although Red Bull's new recruit Isack Hadjar did lose a fair bit of his running to issues of one kind or another.

Aston Martin in a world of pain

There is no question as to the prize for biggest disappointment so far this year. Aston Martin, starting their new works partnership with Honda, are runaway winners of that.

With design legend Adrian Newey at the helm, Honda - world champions with Red Bull as recently as 2024 - and the money of their billionaire owner Lawrence Stroll and Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF), all the ingredients for success seem to be there.

But the new car, delayed by the fact Newey did not arrive until March last year, is uncompetitive and difficult, and the engine is lacking power and unreliable. Aston Martin completed the fewest laps of testing, and look like they may even be in worse shape than new team Cadillac, who expected to be last this year.

Both the internal combustion engine and hybrid elements of the new Honda power-unit are said to be well behind the best.

Several sources told BBC Sport this week that Newey said at Wednesday's meeting of the F1 Commission - a rule-making body comprising all the teams as well as F1 and the FIA - that the Honda power-unit could not even recover energy at the lower limit of 250kw, let alone the higher one of 350kw, which comes into force under certain circumstances in the highly complex rules.

Reliability was so bad that by the start of the final day of the test, Honda had only one battery left, and took the decision to limit running to only short runs. A statement said that was to allow them to study data in between track outings, but in the end Lance Stroll did only six laps all day.

The problems with the engine make it difficult to make any judgement on the car. There is no question it was slow in the corners - but the Honda is running so badly that it's hard for the team to work out where the car is, and therefore how to improve it.

This is exacerbated by the fact Aston's first in-house gearbox - they have bought them in previously - is not communicating with the engine properly, and keeps behaving oddly, making life even more difficult for the drivers.

For Fernando Alonso, this all must come with an agonising sense of deja vu. He spent three painful years at McLaren when Honda were underprepared when they re-entered F1 in 2015.

And now he faces another one, at the age of 44, and with his contract running out at the end of the year.

Publicly, Alonso is staying optimistic as he said: "Short and medium term, I don't think there is anything that is impossible to fix."

How long it takes, though, is another matter. And one thing Alonso does not have much of is time.

Alpine on the rise

While all the teams are reluctant to say exactly where they think they stand in the competitive order, all are clear that there appears to be three groups of teams - the top four, the midfield, and then Aston Martin and Cadillac at the back.

Among the midfield runners, who are in the region of at least a second a lap slower than the big four, the team poised to make the biggest step seem to be Alpine.

They finished last season last, by the biggest margin ever, partly because they devoted extremely limited resource to last year's car, so they could focus on this year.

Alpine have switched to a Mercedes power-unit, following parent company Renault's decision to end its F1 engine programme. And with the combination of this and a much-improved car appear to have jumped up to the top of the midfield fight.

There is some debate as to whether they or Haas are in the best shape, but either way this is huge progress for the French team.

Racing Bulls are also in this mix at the top of the midfield.

But Williams disappoint

Among the midfield teams, Williams seem to be the biggest losers. Their 2026 car has been a disappointment so far, overweight by a significant margin - said to be anywhere between 25 and 40 kilos - and lacking downforce.

Williams finished fifth last year, and this season was supposed to be the next step in their ambition of a return to the top of F1.

Team principal James Vowles has been saying for two years how much of an opportunity the new rules are to move forward, and was vocal last season as to how early they had switched to the 2026 design and compromised 2025 for exactly this reason.

So this is a major blow.

Audi, which has taken over Sauber for the start of its brand new works programme with its own in-house engine, were expected to have difficulties.

But they appear to be in decent shape and have been quietly impressive in the midfield context, and could well be ahead of Williams, even if a long way from their ultimate ambitions.

Pros and cons of the new cars

The leading drivers have all at various points expressed their dissatisfaction with the new rules, especially the amount of energy management required with the new hybrid power-units.

These feature a near 50-50 split between internal combustion engine and electrical components.

With the amount of hybrid power increased three-fold, a component of the engine that helped recovery energy removed, and the batteries more or less the same size as last year, the cars are energy starved.

This has led to some unusual aspects being added to driving.

These include not going flat out in the run up to the start of a qualifying lap, taking corners in higher gears than is optimum for lap time to keep the turbo spinning, lifting and coasting in qualifying, and even not going flat out at the end of a qualifying lap because it is more time-effective to use the energy elsewhere.

At some circuits, there will be a lot more energy recovery required than others by the various means available. These include recovering while at full throttle, known as "super-clip", and lifting and coasting, as well as the standard method, during braking.

Albert Park is one of these energy-poor circuits.

For a purist, and drivers who want to be on the limit at all times, this is not ideal.

But F1 as a sport has known this was coming ever since the power-unit regulations were created in 2022. And, for now, the drivers are going to have get used to a new normal.

Behind the scenes, meanwhile, there are ongoing discussions as to how to allow the drivers to drive in a more conventional way, but it remains to be seen how these will resolve.

However, having seen the cars on track, and watched them on television, it is highly unlikely the average viewer will notice any difference. They still look like F1 cars, and in some ways are more appealing than last year's.

They are smaller and have less downforce, so they slide more in corners, and look more agile. Many of the fast corners that were rendered bends in straights by last year's cars will become a driving challenge again, such as Abbey at Silverstone.

Russell, while acknowledging the differences from previous cars, said: "The guiding principles are still very much the same. You're pushing the car to the absolute limit. You're trying to brake as hard and late as possible, and carry as much speed through the corners. So far, I'm quite enjoying it."

Mercedes set to win engine row

Off track, one of the main focuses of pre-season has been a row between the engine manufacturers over the rules governing the engines' compression ratio.

It split the engine suppliers into two groups, Mercedes versus the rest - Ferrari, Honda and newcomers Red Bull and Audi.

The row was dismissed earlier this week by Vowles - a Mercedes customer - as "noise that will probably go away", and by Mercedes F1 boss Toto Wolff as "a storm in a teacup".

And it looks like both will end up being right.

Why have Mercedes been targeted? Because their rivals believe they have found a way of exploiting the rule restricting the compression ratio - a measurement of the cylinder displacement between the two extremes of the piston stroke - to 16:1. The rules dictate it is measured at ambient temperature.

Typically, the compression ratio reduces when engines heat up, and the belief was Mercedes had found a way using materials technology to limit this loss.

Mercedes' rivals have been pushing for a rule that measures it at a higher temperature, in the hope of restricting their perceived advantage.

This could also have allowed the others to set their ambient temperature compression ratio higher than 16:1 so that it was at the limit at a higher temperature, and so improve the performance of their engines relative to Mercedes.

Governing body the FIA has proposed a compromise whereby the ratio is measured both at ambient temperature and 130C.

As this does not achieve the aim Mercedes' opponents wanted, the signs are the other companies may even vote against the proposal that came out of their own campaign. Even if it passes, it seems it will make no difference.

Wolff added: "The way it works, you know, either we stay with the regulations like we are or the e-vote goes ahead with the proposal that came from the FIA. Both are OK for us."

Start-line variability

Practice starts have been an important feature during this year's pre-season testing

The new engines are also much harder to get off the line, which many expect will lead to unpredictability at starts.

There were safety concerns about this at the start of the first test - especially the risk of a car slow away being rear-ended by another at high speed.

But these were largely assuaged by a new start line procedure that was trialled at the test, which gives the drivers more time to get the turbos spinning at the optimum speed.

On the face of it, the Ferrari-engined cars seemed to have an advantage - they rocketed past rivals on several occasions during these tests.

But Williams driver Alex Albon said: "I don't think what you're seeing is really what's going to happen. You've got drivers who are finishing long runs, going into a practice start, on a high-mileage tyre that's already gone. So you've seen this chaos of some people getting good starts, bad starts, but actually it's not as bad as that."

And data seen by BBC Sport showed that, actually, of all the starts performed in testing, the Mercedes-engined teams as a bloc had the best starts on average - they were ranked in four of the top five places - followed by Ferrari-powered cars.

Strangely, Racing Bulls were second and Red Bull last, despite having the same Red Bull Powertrains/Ford engine.

Fastest times by team in second pre-season test
Ferrari (Charles Leclerc) one minute 31.992 seconds

Mercedes (Kimi Antonelli) Mercedes 1:32.803

McLaren (Oscar Piastri) 1:32.861

Red Bull (Max Verstappen) 1:33.109

Alpine (Pierre Gasly) 1:33.421

Haas (Oliver Bearman) Haas 1:33.487

Audi (Gabriel Bortoleto) 1:33.755

Racing Bulls (Arvid Lindblad) 1:34.149

Williams (Carlos Sainz) 1:34.342

Cadillac (Valtteri Bottas) 1:35.290

Aston Martin (Lance Stroll) 1:35.974

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/articles/c77e1djpg3mo

[yorch]

Ganas de que empiece esto, buena pinta en cuanto a la lucha arriba.

Malisima pinta lo de Aston Martin que parece el dia de la marmota. Seguro que van mejorando pero, joer, vaya arranque.

[llumia]

Comparativa telemétrica de VER, durante el 2º día de prácticas, entre su mejor vuelta y su primera vuelta del simulacro de carrera. Si a una vuelta ya deben levantar el pie, a finales de las rectas, en carrera es más notorio:

[llumia]

Comparativa telemétrica entre VER y PIA para su primera vuelta en sus simulacros de carrera del 2º día. Ambos montan neumáticos Medios:

servicio de alojamiento de imágenes

[GoVal]

Simulación comparando el Williams del año pasado con el Ferrari.



https://x.com/MiguelMaestroIA/status/2026022973086253350?s=20

[llumia]

Ranking the 2026 F1 teams after pre-season testing


If you had to pick a midfield car to drive in Bahrain it would have been the Haas.

As we've come to expect from this team it ran extremely well, but it also looked good too - in the boring, 'there's nothing dramatic about this car' kind of way.

Both drivers were very happy with the handling improvements that came in the final week, first in terms of entry instability and rear traction, and then through-corner balance.

It looks like a well-balanced, solid midfield car, and with all that's changed with the rules and some teams badly underachieving - that's actually an ideal platform to start the year.

We have Haas good enough to head the midfield at its best, but are wary of that Alpine potential ultimately elevating the Mercedes customer team slightly higher.

4th: Red Bull

In Max Verstappen's hands this car looks every bit as good on track as any of the leading teams.

But unless Red Bull is holding back more than we could discern, it was overhauled as testing progressed.

It legitimately looked like the benchmark package at times in the opening week in Bahrain, and the new engine's strong deployment characteristics remained evident in week two.

Overall, though, it was eclipsed by Mercedes and Ferrari as those two teams really found their feet - and McLaren got on level terms too.

Great preparation meant it started testing on the front foot but there is now more work to do for Red Bull to find some missing pace.

3rd: McLaren

Last year's world champion is not going to be the early 2026 benchmark – but it is at least mixing it with the works teams.

By the end of the second week in Bahrain, McLaren felt tentatively confident it was competitive against Red Bull and maybe slightly ahead.

"McLaren, Red Bull – probably very similar. Ferrari and Mercedes a step ahead," was how team boss Andrea Stella characterised things.

Its car was certainly improved and looked a lot more consistent, but a lingering deficit seems to exist on the energy management side as McLaren's not quite wrapped its head around what Mercedes is able to do.

That said, a small performance bump is expected in Australia when it gets the latest spec Mercedes engine – having run a slightly lesser version in testing.

This little bit of performance limitation, easily rectifiable, is what nudges McLaren ahead of Red Bull in this ranking, as they otherwise seemed neck and neck by the end of the test.

2nd: Ferrari

Not only did Ferrari catch the eye with several innovative design features, notably its inverting rear wing and the winglet that appeared behind the exhaust, but also with its performance on track.

But while Charles Leclerc set the outright testing pace, the long runs suggest that it's not quite at the level of Mercedes. But even if that is the case, it's got a good foundation to build from with its smaller turbo making the car a rocket off the start line.

Like a different formula - F1 2026 cars' huge progress over testing
What was striking about the Ferrari was the progress made dynamically. From the start of the first Bahrain test, the car was responsive on turn-in but inconsistent and lacked rear grip. Even when showing good pace, the car moved around noticeably more than its rivals.

But as the days rolled on, steady improvement meant that by the time Leclerc was setting his quick laps in the closing stages of the final day, the car looked well-balanced, responsive and capable.

1st: Mercedes

Metronomic was the word that sprang to mind for the Mercedes, both in terms of its poise on track and how it racked up more laps than any other team in pre-season testing - despite occasional problems that cost track time.

Even on the final day of testing, a power unit change had to be made after a loss of pneumatic pressure.

Early in the first Bahrain test, there were problems with the downshifts that left Mercedes trailing Red Bull on harvesting. Those were soon smoothed out and, even though Mercedes continued to talk up Red Bull's deployment advantage, George Russell admitted that gap was reduced by the Mercedes-powered teams.

Although the fastest Mercedes lap was eight-tenths off the pace set by Ferrari, don't be fooled. Mercedes is favourite for the Australian Grand Prix in the eyes of every team in the paddock, and the full extent of its race pace was only hinted at in Bahrain.

The only question mark is whether the much tougher harvesting challenge of Albert Park could cause problems.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/ranking-the-2026-f1-teams-after-pre-season-testing/

[llumia]

F1 teams agree another change to tackle 2026 start safety fears

Formula 1 looks set to shut down another of the more dangerous aspects of race starts this year, after warnings that it was a "recipe for disaster".

Amid recent discussions about the safety of starts with the 2026 cars, the initial focus had revolved around the timing procedures – and potential challenges that drivers had to get their turbos spooled up prior to the light sequence beginning.

The FIA reacted by giving an extra five seconds to drivers on the grid to help them prepare – with several successful practice start simulations then completed over the course of this week's Bahrain test.

Another aspect had cropped up as an area of concern, though, which was that drivers were allowed to use their active aero straight mode off the line.

With starting grids typically being in the middle of straight mode activation zones, the rules allowed drivers to keep their wings in low drag mode for the race starts.

This would in theory provide a top speed boost as it would minimise drag on the run to the first corner as drivers jostled for position.

However, a combination of the fearsome acceleration of the cars, allied to this meaning drivers would have a dramatic loss of downforce, posed the risk of things going wrong.

It was this element that Oscar Piastri had highlighted as being a catalyst for trouble if it was allowed to continue.

"A pack of 22 cars with a couple 100 points less downforce sounds like a recipe for disaster to me," he said.

It has now emerged that teams have accepted that keeping things as they were was not worth the peril, so it has been agreed that a rule tweak will come into play.

This will need to be formally approved by the FIA – either through a change in the regulations or a direct order from the F1 race director which can be done on safety grounds – but that now looks set to happen in time for the Australian Grand Prix.

McLaren team principal Andrea Stella explained: "I think there was a common agreement, in terms of usage of the straight mode from the grid to the first corner, not to use it.

"While this has to be ratified in a way, by the FIA, I understand that there's a general agreement across the pack."

During the numerous practice starts from the grid in Bahrain last week, drivers notably kept their wings in corner mode to ensure that they had maximum downforce available on the run down to the first corner.

Concerns not fully gone
Despite the looming ban on straightline mode for the starts, and an improved procedure, it still appears that the first seconds of a grand prix will deliver plenty of jeopardy.

The varied performances of the different power units, especially the Ferrari looking so good off the line, could lead to some major shuffling of positions early on.

Mercedes driver George Russell, who found himself beaten to Turn 1 in one practice start by Lewis Hamilton coming from very far back, accepts that big improvements need to be made on his side.

"I think we've got a lot of potential beneath us, but to win a race you've also got to get off the line quite well," he said.

"I think the two starts I've made this week were worse than my worst ever start in F1. So Lewis down in P11, got into P1.

"At this stage, I don't think it matters how quick you are. The thing that's going to trip you up is going to be that tallest hurdle, and that's what we're trying to get our heads around right now. And yeah, we're stumbling on some at the moment."

Stella reckoned that the big differences in getaway speed could yet become an issue that needed looking at.

"I think the activity that is happening on the starts is very positive," he explained.

"It is creating a situation where everyone is given the opportunity to prepare their power unit, even if, in fairness, we still see that there's quite a lot of disparity in the start performance.

"So in a way, the concern, based on what we see in testing, has not necessarily been overcome."

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/f1-teams-agree-another-change-to-tackle-2026-start-safety-fears/

[llumia]

Trackside view: 2026 F1 cars changed hugely over six days in Bahrain

t was like watching a completely different formula. That's how startling the difference between watching the 11 Formula 1 cars on the first day of Bahrain testing and the last was.

That's not so much in terms of outright pace, although the fastest lap at the end of the test on Friday was 2.7 seconds quicker than the pace of the previous Wednesday, and the runplans meant there were far more laps within what might be called the normal pace spread. Instead, it's about the poise of the cars on track and how at home the drivers looked behind the wheel.

On Wednesday of last week, many looked tentative. That's why the aggressive downshifts of Max Verstappen in the Red Bull stood out in comparison. While others were working to optimise this, Red Bull Powertrains appeared to be more advanced and Verstappen's ability to deal with any resulting rear instability added up to a car that looked much more assured.

By contrast, the Racing Bulls with the same power unit looked all over the place, the Audi sounded like a bag of nails, the Mercedes seemed a little conservative and the Ferrari more conventional in its braking and downshifts.

All of this evolved over the course of testing, strikingly so for the Audi. It still sounded the most brutal of the power units save for the troubled Honda, but by the end of testing it also had the air of being either a different engine or one so dramatically recalibrated that it might as well have been.

Finessing the gearbox and power unit settings - understanding the complex interactions of the braking and downshifts with the dynamics of the car - was a key objective and everyone made significant gains. This is critical under the new regulations because harvesting under braking is your priority when it comes to putting the energy you need into the battery. It's about walking the tightrope between maximising harvesting and ensuring the driver has the stability, and therefore confidence, they need.

We've been analysing car performance from trackside throughout testing in The Race Members' Club and will be doing plenty more of that through the season to come - check all our bonus content out now with a seven-day free trial

One of the many disadvantages of the Barcelona test being behind closed doors amid groundless fears of widespread unreliability is that it meant the early running in Bahrain was stripped of context. The expectation was that the cars would be more refined after the running in Spain, so rather than being impressed with the gains made since that first test, it meant that watching the cars in Bahrain initially was more concerning. The problems with front-locking, the instability, the countless wide moments - all exacerbated by the windy conditions - made for a messy spectacle. It was F1, but it didn't quite look like the F1 we've become used to.

It wasn't just the number of laps spent focusing on data acquisition and outside of what might be called the usual range of running you'd typically see on a grand prix weekend, but also the need to calibrate your eye to the reduced grip of these cars.

However, what did stand out was that the claims that these 2026 machines were more agile and nimble stood up. That was particularly noticeable in the improved responsiveness on turn-in.

The drivers, too, improved dramatically as they acclimatised to the cars and the counter-intuitive elements of the driving style became familiar.

That also played its part to the point where on the final day of running, with the exception of the rarely-glimpsed Aston Martin, the whole field was packed with well-understood, effectively set-up, planted and consistent machines.

Yes, there were still relative strengths and weaknesses and some cars were clearly in a better place than others, but a little instability here, some understeer there, were all in the usual range of dynamic challenges F1 drivers have always battled.

F1 teams make progress at an amazing rate. The cars will be better again in Melbourne, and likely by the time we get to Abu Dhabi at the end of the season they will be significantly faster. That's the essential truth of F1.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/trackside-view-2026-f1-cars-changed-hugely-over-six-days-in-bahrain/

[llumia]

The Ferrari F1 2026 solution rivals can't copy



Ferrari triggered the biggest technical intrigue of last week's Bahrain test as it revealed a double-whammy of innovation on its car.

But while its upside-down rear wing was certainly the most eye-catching idea of the pre-season, it is a concept that some other teams had evaluated and may yet choose to try out themselves in 2026.

What is perhaps more fascinating is that the new exhaust wing, which was snuck out in the second Bahrain test, is not only very clever but it's something that others are not going to be able to copy quickly.

That is because Ferrari capitalised on some fundamental decisions with the packaging of core car components to work out theoretical limitations that were supposed to stop teams playing around with wings in this area of the car.

Here we look at how Ferrari worked around those restrictions and why it will be so hard for rivals to follow suit.

Upgrade evolution

Ferrari's SF-26 had run in the Barcelona test in a base specification, with the main objective being to shake down the new project on the power unit side and to verify that, from a structural and aerodynamic standpoint, there were no anomalies.

In the initial Bahrain test, the first parts recently developed in the Maranello wind tunnel were introduced.

This included a new floor revised in virtually every area compared to the Spec A version with which Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc had run in Spain.

In the second Bahrain test, the more aggressive solutions made their debut: both the unusual wing placed just behind the exhaust outlet and the new upside down rear wing idea.

Both designs are aimed at extracting gains by operating at the very limit of the regulations.

In terms of the exhaust wing, it is about making use of the exhaust gas exit velocity to try to add some downforce.


The exhaust wing



The bodywork wing surrounding the rear crash structure — which, for almost three quarters of its length, positions itself behind the exhaust — required a lengthy approval process in conjunction with the FIA.

The primary advantage lies in cleaning up the airflow exiting the diffuser from the hot (and less dense) turbulent exhaust gases.

The small wing connects with the walls that extend from the diffuser and surround the crash structure (where the rain light is located).

On the SF-26, the engineers coordinated their work by fully exploiting the limits allowed by the rear legality box (RV Tail) in terms of positioning and volume.

Many teams have chosen to use the rear crash structure to create a form of diffuser extension, bringing certain advantages.

Ferrari's idea was to push the concept to the maximum, exploiting the benefits of a diffuser extension both in terms of increasing its effective length and in cleaning the flow by displacing exhaust turbulence.

The rear crash structure is a component that tapers rearwards, and it is one of the few boxes that does not have a completely fixed position.

In fact, the tail volume's position along the X-axis (the car's longitudinal axis) is strictly dependent on the position of other legality boxes.

So where the crash structure starts and ends is directly related to where a team chooses to have its gearbox.

In Ferrari's case, the aerodynamic department led by Diego Tondi had the insight to incorporate a turning vane with an aerodynamic surface that, to be as large as possible, required the crash structure to begin as far rearward as it could go.



It is understood that the Maranello team worked over the winter exploiting what is permitted by a clause in Article 9.5.1 of F1's technical regulations, which imposes dimensional constraints on the gearbox.

The key detail affecting the position of the crash structure concerns the (admittedly small) degree of freedom granted by the regulations regarding the differential's position.

Relative to the wheel axis, it may be positioned up to 60mm forward or 60mm rearward along the X-axis.

In detail, part of Article 9.5.1 states: "The axis of the final drive (at XDIF=0) must be between XR = −60 and XR = 60, between Z = 260 and Z = 280, and be between 390mm and 450mm behind the front lateral gear-tooth faces of both gears of the forward-most forward gear ratio pair."

In a latest update that was published in December, the tail box was revised in terms of packaging constraints by the FIA.



This effectively expanded the allowable volume — particularly in the Z direction (vertical axis).

This aspect proved key for the Tondi-led aerodynamicists in extending the diffuser upward to the maximum allowable height, effectively covering the exhaust.

Simulations carried out both in CFD and in vehicle dynamics were positive, prompting the team to undertake several redesigns that Ferrari made sure were legal in the eyes of the FIA.

To comply, Ferrari had to ensure that the gearbox differential was designed in its most rearward position.

This required a sufficiently narrow gearbox casing in order to avoid excessively increasing packaging in the central section of the diffuser.

This was certainly not a simple task in terms of reliability — and this comes with Ferrari having traditionally been a bit more conservative in this area compared to other squads.

Blown diffuser gains

While the exhaust wing is an interesting solution, it would be wrong to suggest that it will be a game-changer in terms of performance.

It is certainly not going to deliver the kind of massive gain as Brawn got from its double diffuser in 2009, or even what a host of teams got from the blown diffusers from 2011.

But because of the behaviour of the new power units, there is an advantage to be had from exploiting hot exhaust gases that is perhaps greater than it has been in more recent years.

With the new 2026 power units — for which energy recovery strategies involve slightly delaying the lift-off of the internal combustion engine to recharge the battery or staying full throttle when harvesting — Ferrari's concept could have a noticeable impact.

There should be downforce benefits to be had in many types of corners.

Most other teams will be unable to try the wing out for themselves, as they are constrained by the location of their gearbox.

But it is not impossible that another squad could do it – which is Haas.

Unlike Ferrari's other customer squad Cadillac, which only takes the power unit from Maranello, Haas also takes Ferrari's other transferable components so could in theory unleash the same wing idea itself.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/the-ferrari-f1-2026-solution-rivals-cant-copy/