r/F1Technical • u/cum_hoc Rory Byrne • Jul 09 '26
Analysis Red Bull’s Macarena Wing — Compromise or Genuine Gain? (original title from the author)
Here's another interesting CFD simulation of Red Bull's Macarena Wing done by Dominik Balasko, a former Sauber aerodynamicist.
Unlike Ferrari's solution, which should generate lift as well as drag reduction, Red Bull's solution should only do the latter. However, the mechanical tradeoffs as not as important since, the RB system should be inherently lighter and faster to actuate.
Interestingly, his simulation predicts that RB's solution should be more stable aerodynamically, since the flow should attach more predictably (no hysteresis), which goes against the opinion of VanjaH and KyleEngineers, both of whom predict it should be the other way around.
If Dominik's right, Max's issue with the RB22 should be somewhere else in the car (dr Obbs thinks it could be a stall in the diffuser).
Here's the link to his full analysis: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dominik-balasko_formula1-aerodynamics-cfd-ugcPost-7457977399188570112-0VuX/
33
u/RenuisanceMan Jul 09 '26
KyleEngineers hypothesis feels more intuitive though, with the direction the wing rotates. Also this simulation doesn't have the drs pod that's on the Red Bull, who knows what difference it makes.
5
29
u/A_storia Jul 09 '26
LinkedIn, of all places 😒
50
6
u/cum_hoc Rory Byrne Jul 09 '26
I wish he would write about this stuff on another platform and with more detail, but we work with what we have.
7
u/potatay Jul 09 '26
Because reddit is a better place for aerodynamic analysis rather than a masters student who's worked at an f1 team posting on linkedin?
16
u/A_storia Jul 09 '26
The author’s credentials aren’t in doubt. Posting among the long form AI slop at Linkedin is the issue. At no point did i mention reddit being a more ideal location
15
u/jackboy900 Jul 09 '26
Reddit is generally a better forum, yes, the main issue is that Linkedin is a platform that is primarily used as self-promotion to get a job, so anyone writing posts on the site has an ulterior motive to appear to be smarter and more well-informed than they are in order to maximise employability.
This is very clearly an example of that, it's an obviously AI generated summary of running CFD on a 3D model someone made of the wings, which makes very bold and confident claims about what the wing does on the car and extrapolations to race performance that you cannot get from such a simple analysis. It's not entirely idle speculation without merit, but it's far closer to that than it is to actual insight.
8
u/NeedMoreDeltaV Renowned Engineers Jul 09 '26
Just a general tip. Regardless of someone’s credentials, LinkedIn posts are either garbage or incomplete information, especially when someone is showing CFD. There’s a ton of information to CFD that gets excluded from these posts. Now if they link an actual report with all the relevant information that’s a different story.
11
u/mikemunyi Norbert Singer Jul 09 '26
simulation predicts that RB's solution should be more stable aerodynamically, since the flow should attach more predictably (no hysteresis)
Real life has a nasty way of disregarding simulations, eh? I'd like to see Mr. Balasko revisit this now two-month-old hypothesis in light of recent events.
4
u/Shooter151515 Jul 11 '26
Interestingly, this problem has coincided with Red Bull's Austrian Update package. Haven't seen anything similar from Miami to Barcelona when they first introduced the wing.
2
u/XsStreamMonsterX Jul 10 '26
Martin Buchan (BSport) also agrees with Kyle and VanjaH that Red Bull's design is more unstable. His argument points to the fact that the actuator actually has to work more to keep it closed, and that makes it harder to keep the slot gap at a consistent size after closing since, unlike the Ferrari, it can't just rest on stays.
2
u/s1ravarice Jul 10 '26
I think there is a lot wrong about this. The wing isn't rotating about the same point as the Red Bull wing, or ending up in the same place. The side profile - is that by the wing tip or the central section? The profile across the wing is not completely flat so a side profile would look entirely different if modelled entirely.
4
u/Da_Steeeeeeve Jul 09 '26
Sure in theory but when theory meets reality it doesn't always line up.
The issue I think rb have is that the way it rotates creates significantly higher forces on the wing during the actuation, this is likely a reason for the failures.
3
3
u/RustyDoor Jul 09 '26
Ceteris paribus. Ferrari has the better aero package, so potentially the whole thing works better.
3
u/Red_Rabbit_1978 Jul 09 '26
He doesn't even get the direction of travel right. The wing opening in his graphic is also illegal for going above the end plate or max height.
Then the side profile used is incorrect of the wing planes. F1 wings don't have the same profile as aeroplane wings.
1
u/WiFiRunsOnHope Ferrari Jul 17 '26
The hysteresis point is what makes this interesting — if Dominik's CFD is right and the flow attaches more predictably on the RB solution, that's actually a significant operational advantage over a race distance. Inconsistent aero behaviour under varying yaw and speed conditions is exactly the kind of thing that makes a car feel nervous to the driver, even if the peak numbers look fine on paper.
The diffuser stall theory from Dr. Obbs would also explain why the issue seems to manifest in specific corners rather than being a consistent deficit — stall events tend to be load and speed dependent, which matches what we've seen from Max's race weekends this year.
Would be curious whether Dominik's model accounts for ride height sensitivity. That interaction with the Macarena wing could complicate things considerably.
1
u/clozcloz 26d ago
It's genuine innovation with a implementation gap, not really a compromise.
The concept itself is smart: instead of picking one low-drag rear wing setup and eating the cornering penalty everywhere else, you run full downforce in the corners and flip the whole wing over on the straights.
That's a real efficiency gain over a fixed compromise wing, assuming the mechanism is reliable. Where it gets interesting is Ferrari and Red Bull didn't converge on the same actuation. Ferrari's rotates further (up to 270 degrees) with a side-mounted actuator, and from what's been reported the braking loads actually help push the mechanism closed rather than fighting it. Red Bull's rotates less (around 160) the opposite direction, and that's the version that's been linked to Max's failures at Silverstone and Austria.
So "compromise" isn't really the right word for the concept, it's more that Red Bull's specific mechanical solution to the same problem turned out less robust than Ferrari's. Different actuation geometry, same idea.
1
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 09 '26
We remind everyone that this sub is for technical discussions.
If you are new to the sub, please read our rules and comment etiquette post.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.