Formula 1 2026 – WI...
 

Formula 1 2026 – WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS

Posts: 4241
Full Member
 

Posted by: multi21

Presume he'd be on gardening leave now anyway so wonder what will happen at Aston in the meantime.

I would imagine that’s quite an extended period of time 


 
Posted : 20/03/2026 5:35 pm
Posts: 1013
Full Member
 

New controversy for Mercedes. It appears that their front wing can be closed in two stages, allowing increased stability under braking and faster corner entry for fast bends. I can't see it reported in the usual places yet though...
Ferrari are apparently seeking clarification from the FIA...

https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/controversy-hits-mercedes-two-phase-123004538.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKOGdRyaeGeshvnOq0UJ_2iVUDCAHNjhab4KU9O5bC7cdapBSo9-BJe1SbdfApwOzBR-rFrZC6-u22U2RkUWaskS_L5I2MnbQ9MeCn1LRzTZRmtvNVgEhIrHIeCuffWLmepS3EUwfaaISH0CiDS0jzEZufQeYlItGY-glbUWvLvV


 
Posted : 25/03/2026 6:40 pm
Posts: 13566
Full Member
 

As far as I understand, that front wing the issue is that the rules say it must go from open to closed in 400 ms.

The Mercedes front wing does go from open to closed in 400 ms. It then spends another second or so going from close to really, really closed.

The rules don't say there can't be a position beyond closed that is really, really closed, so therefore it's legal. 

 

Actually, I think the rules say they can only be in two positions, open or closed, but they don't specify that closed has to be a fixed position. Therefore, it could be anywhere between where the Mercedes wing is travelling in 400 ms and where it ends up a few seconds later. I really hope Mercedes has got some good lawyers.


 
Posted : 25/03/2026 10:02 pm
nickc reacted
Posts: 12347
Full Member
 

Just seems like standard practice of pushing the grey areas of the regulations so that it complies with a plausible interpretation, even if it ignores the intention. Same with the Ferrari "windscreen".


 
Posted : 26/03/2026 2:17 am
nickc reacted
Posts: 1013
Full Member
 

It would appear to have been explained, at least the FIA are happy....

The Mercedes front wing is one that operates with hydraulic pressure being used to push the wing element into corner mode, rather than having a system that gets it pulled down for straightline mode.

In Shanghai, the team got its calculations wrong in terms of how much hydraulic pressure was required to close the wing at maximum speed because of the forces being pushed against it as the car travels through the air.

The result was that then when the corner mode was activated, there was not enough hydraulic pressure to push the wing back into its final fixed position when the car was travelling above a certain speed, because the forces it needed to counter were too high.

It was only when the speed came off, so the forces experienced by the wing travelling through the air were less, that it was fully able to close.

Mercedes first became aware of the wing problem in qualifying in China, and it was that experience that prompted a front wing change for George Russell during that session.

It believed that fixes had been put in place for the race to prevent a repeat, but those were clearly not enough as Antonelli suffered similar problems.

Sources have revealed that work has been done at Mercedes' Brackley factory since the China race to improve its hydraulic systems and make it more robust, with the hope being that there will not be repeat problems in Japan this weekend.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/mysterious-mercedes-front-wing-behaviour-explained-f1-2026/


 
Posted : 26/03/2026 8:07 am
Posts: 34937
Full Member
 

Verstappen's refusing to speak to a Guardian journalist because of questions they've asked about last year. 

"I'm not speaking before he's leaving" 

 

 


 
Posted : 26/03/2026 9:28 am
Posts: 9193
Full Member
 

Snowflake. 


 
Posted : 26/03/2026 9:45 am
Posts: 4241
Full Member
 

Posted by: beanum

It would appear to have been explained, at least the FIA are happy....

The Mercedes front wing is one that operates with hydraulic pressure being used to push the wing element into corner mode, rather than having a system that gets it pulled down for straightline mode.

In Shanghai, the team got its calculations wrong in terms of how much hydraulic pressure was required to close the wing at maximum speed because of the forces being pushed against it as the car travels through the air.

The result was that then when the corner mode was activated, there was not enough hydraulic pressure to push the wing back into its final fixed position when the car was travelling above a certain speed, because the forces it needed to counter were too high.

It was only when the speed came off, so the forces experienced by the wing travelling through the air were less, that it was fully able to close.

Mercedes first became aware of the wing problem in qualifying in China, and it was that experience that prompted a front wing change for George Russell during that session.

It believed that fixes had been put in place for the race to prevent a repeat, but those were clearly not enough as Antonelli suffered similar problems.

Sources have revealed that work has been done at Mercedes' Brackley factory since the China race to improve its hydraulic systems and make it more robust, with the hope being that there will not be repeat problems in Japan this weekend.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/mysterious-mercedes-front-wing-behaviour-explained-f1-2026/

 

Im sure the FIA are happy, the rest of us think it stinks. Are we really meant to believe that they didnt know this would happen after testing in practice and the sprint race. Im sure teams are accidentally underweight or have excessively worn planks but thats an DQ penalty.

 


 
Posted : 26/03/2026 9:59 am
Posts: 2068
Free Member
 

Williams also had problems with their front wing failing to return.

The mechanisms are open source so I'd be impressed if they managed to hide something in the design without the other teams being aware.

 


 
Posted : 26/03/2026 10:43 am
Posts: 12347
Full Member
 

Posted by: chrismac

Are we really meant to believe that they didnt know this would happen after testing in practice and the sprint race.

When you have complex systems that are designed to push performance right to the limit and with very limited time to test everything, you'll get little glitches slipping through.


 
Posted : 26/03/2026 11:03 am
Posts: 4241
Full Member
 

Posted by: thols2

Posted by: chrismac

Are we really meant to believe that they didnt know this would happen after testing in practice and the sprint race.

When you have complex systems that are designed to push performance right to the limit and with very limited time to test everything, you'll get little glitches slipping through.

 

Im not buying that in this case. They must have known during practice, quali, and the sprint race that this was happening and chose not to fix it. Teams have glitches that mean they get the plank wear calc wrong, or glitches that mean they fail the minimum weight test at the end of the races or glitches that mean there is insufficient fuel left to test. Yet still get disqualified. Why should this glitch not result in a DQ for gaining an advantage? 

 


 
Posted : 26/03/2026 11:23 am
Posts: 12347
Full Member
 

Posted by: chrismac

Why should this glitch not result in a DQ for gaining an advantage? 

It didn't give an advantage, it did the opposite, they had less front downforce under braking so their braking power was reduced.


 
Posted : 26/03/2026 11:28 am
Posts: 2068
Free Member
 

Posted by: chrismac

Posted by: thols2

Posted by: chrismac

Are we really meant to believe that they didnt know this would happen after testing in practice and the sprint race.

When you have complex systems that are designed to push performance right to the limit and with very limited time to test everything, you'll get little glitches slipping through.

 

Im not buying that in this case. They must have known during practice, quali, and the sprint race that this was happening and chose not to fix it. Teams have glitches that mean they get the plank wear calc wrong, or glitches that mean they fail the minimum weight test at the end of the races or glitches that mean there is insufficient fuel left to test. Yet still get disqualified. Why should this glitch not result in a DQ for gaining an advantage? 

 

(According to Merc) they changed the front wing and some settings and thought they had fixed it.

I believe the issue was raised by Mclaren outside the window allowed for DSQ so there was zero chance of that happening anyway.

 


 
Posted : 26/03/2026 11:48 am
 Bez
Posts: 7438
Full Member
 

Posted by: thols2

Posted by: chrismac

Why should this glitch not result in a DQ for gaining an advantage? 

It didn't give an advantage, it did the opposite, they had less front downforce under braking so their braking power was reduced.

Right. Best to stop believing things on YouTube. Under braking you benefit from not just downforce but also drag, so a system that reduces both of those would be a pretty crappy design.

 


 
Posted : 26/03/2026 5:38 pm
Posts: 4241
Full Member
 

Posted by: Bez

Posted by: thols2

Posted by: chrismac

Why should this glitch not result in a DQ for gaining an advantage? 

It didn't give an advantage, it did the opposite, they had less front downforce under braking so their braking power was reduced.

Right. Best to stop believing things on YouTube. Under braking you benefit from not just downforce but also drag, so a system that reduces both of those would be a pretty crappy design.

 

 

I agree that would be a disadvantage. But on the straights before they hit the breaking point is an advantage especially this year when top speed isn’t just before you brake

 


 
Posted : 26/03/2026 7:19 pm
Posts: 12347
Full Member
 

Posted by: chrismac

But on the straights before they hit the breaking point is an advantage especially this year when top speed isn’t just before you brake

The wings are in low-downforce mode for the straights. They are returned to high-downforce mode for the braking zone. The issue here is that the Merc front wing takes longer than the mandated 400 ms to switch between the two. This makes zero difference to straight-line mode and gives a small disadvantage in the braking zone.


 
Posted : 26/03/2026 9:20 pm
Posts: 358
Free Member
 

I have issues with people posting comments like “the rest of us” or “nobody likes it”, as if they have asked everyone for their opinion, just to make sure these are factual.


 
Posted : 26/03/2026 10:32 pm
Posts: 2068
Free Member
 

Ferrari looking a bit on the back foot in FP1 + 2.  Might see a Mclaren back on the podium...


 
Posted : 27/03/2026 9:30 am
Posts: 34937
Full Member
 

Good to see the Maclarens back at the pointy end, d'you we think they've sorted their issues with the engine? Would be great to have both Norris and Piastri mixing it with the Mercs and Ferraris...Especially at Suzuka 


 
Posted : 27/03/2026 10:16 am
Posts: 14271
Free Member
 

Posted by: thols2
The issue here is that the Merc front wing takes longer than the mandated 400 ms to switch between the two. This makes zero difference to straight-line mode and gives a small disadvantage in the braking zone.

If it's a disadvantage in the braking zone why is there a mandated time for the wing to close?
(Do you think that just maybe it's because sometimes it's not a disadvantage to have the wing open a bit longer?)


 
Posted : 27/03/2026 11:20 am
Posts: 10629
Full Member
 

2 reasons.  1. Because it might be disadvantageous for the first braking zone, it might be significantly advantageous for the next sector overall if it happens to be more open.  2.) Because F1Teams LOVE a loophole.  If it's never, really, not in reality, fully closed, can it ever really be said to be open too early?  Open and closed create static states.  


 
Posted : 27/03/2026 11:35 am
Page 8 / 8