Following the initial track activity in Barcelona, the immediate question arises regarding the necessity of such secrecy. Naturally, it’s understood that the ‘official’ winter testing event is scheduled for Bahrain, and for commercial reasons, only that gathering is permitted to bear the designation of ‘testing’. However, initial anxieties about a recurrence of the issues seen in 2014 have been dispelled.
Williams was absent, Audi, as a new participant, encountered some initial difficulties, and yes, there were pauses due to red flags, which is entirely expected at the outset of a new era. It has certainly not been a disaster. In fact, a contrasting viewpoint could be argued: it is commendable that the majority of teams have been so effective in their early performance after a very brief off-season and the most significant technical regulations overhaul in decades.
The fact that the initial shakedown occurred behind closed doors means that only a limited number of photographs became public, and in a highly controlled manner. Teams and F1 had the discretion to share precisely what they wished, implying that a more comprehensive understanding will require patience until the Bahrain event.
There is also the usual caveat that applies during the pre-season period: these vehicles represent merely the inaugural iterations of the new cars, and numerous advancements will be introduced prior to the opening race. Especially under these revised regulations, the pace of development is anticipated to be exceptionally rapid, meaning this foundational package by no means presents the complete narrative.
Nevertheless, initial observations consistently offer intriguing insights. Leading up to 2026, several technical leaders indicated that the new rules would be quite restrictive, allowing little room for innovation, but Adrian Newey offered a slightly different perspective last year: “It’s exactly the same [as in 2022].
“When I first looked at the 2026 rules, my first reaction was, God, this doesn’t leave much. But then you start to drill into the detail and there is a reasonable amount of flexibility. Of course, I’d always like more, but there’s a reasonable amount of flexibility.”
The inaugural visual representations of the 2026 cars corroborate these statements, particularly due to Newey’s creation. While the overarching designs might not appear radically distinct at first glance, these variations become remarkably apparent upon closer examination.
Forward Aerofoil – Exploring Dynamic Aero and Airflow Management?
The FIA has dedicated considerable effort to the front wings to mitigate ‘outwash’ airflow, yet F1 teams still possess substantial creative freedom in their designs. This is already evident in some teams’ differing approaches to active aerodynamic components.
Most teams have attached the nose section to the primary element of the front wing, enabling the second and third elements – as allowed by the regulations – to flatten on straight sections of the track. Aston Martin and Mercedes, however, utilized an alternative setup in Barcelona. Both teams had their nose pylons affixed to the second element, meaning only the uppermost element was free to articulate as part of the active aerodynamic system. According to the rules, both elements are permitted to move: one by 60mm and the other by 30mm.
By connecting the nose to the second element, these teams theoretically cede some of that design liberty, but even if that is the case, there could be multiple justifications. Primarily, it allows the structural portion of the nose to be marginally shorter than that of most competitors, where the second element flattens. Secondly, an attachment to the second element seemingly provides greater creative latitude for the main plane, which is apparent in the Aston Martin wing’s profile.
Teams have also suggested that their active aerodynamic choices are intricately tied to the required downforce levels for each circuit. It is not guaranteed that this will be the specific configuration employed in Melbourne, let alone throughout the remainder of the season. Last year, several teams could adjust the nose without needing a fresh crash test, which in theory offers more flexibility to manipulate these precise characteristics.
The front of the Mercedes W17, clearly showing that the nose rests on the second wing element
A further detail is the presence of a small aperture in the nose on some teams’ cars. On the Mercedes, this opening is visible between the Akkodis and SAP branding. It provides access to a flap adjustment mechanism, for instance, during pit stops. This system allows for adjustments on both sides, whereas the older method—on the outboard section of the wing—required manual adjustment of each side. A similar aperture is also observed on the Red Bull and McLaren, while the Ferrari SF-26 currently lacks this feature.
Initial variations in wing configurations are also apparent. All teams incorporate a relatively conventional vortex tunnel on both flanks, albeit with notable differences in execution, and even more pronounced distinctions are visible in how teams endeavor to generate outwash—a phenomenon linked to the disruptive effect of the front tires. As previously noted, this is contrary to the FIA’s intent, but a comparative analysis of all front wings clearly illustrates that teams are striving to maximize potential within the allocated parameters.
Most teams, exemplified by the new McLaren, have affixed a relatively horizontal fin to the wing endplate. If disturbed air from the tires moves inward, it interrupts the airflow directed to the floor and the rest of the car. Teams aim to divert this air outward as much as possible, a function partially served by these fins—McLaren’s fin also inclines downward, generating a slight downwash effect concurrently.
Forward Suspension – Predominantly Pushrod, Yet with Extreme Designs
At Aston Martin, such a fin was not yet discernible during the initial laps at Catalunya, but Newey’s design appears extreme in numerous other respects. This holds true, for instance, for the comparatively broad nose that subsequently narrows—another area where the 2026 cars display considerable variation thus far.
The same observation applies when examining the front suspension. A distinct overarching pattern has emerged: most teams have reverted to a pushrod front suspension. Under the preceding regulations, a pullrod arrangement at the front gained widespread popularity, with Red Bull and McLaren leading this trend.
Pushrod and pullrod suspension systems each possess their advantages and disadvantages. With a pullrod setup, the inboard suspension components are positioned lower, marginally reducing the center of gravity. Conversely, with a pushrod system, these elements are situated higher, rendering them more accessible for mechanics and, consequently, simpler to maintain.
Furthermore, as James Key recently elaborated, a pushrod can theoretically be marginally lighter—which, given the rather ambitious minimum weight target for 2026, might be a beneficial side effect for some teams. However, the choice between pushrod and pullrod primarily carries aerodynamic implications, and these have ultimately been the deciding factor.
Under the prior rules, most teams found the pullrod system better suited for optimally guiding airflow towards the floor tunnels. But with the new regulations relying significantly less on ground effect, that balance has shifted in conjunction with the updated front wing. Presently, only Alpine and Cadillac are opting for a pullrod front suspension, and it is notable that the Enstone-based team attempted to imply the exact opposite during its car launch.
The pushrod front suspension of the McLaren MCL40, with considerable anti-dive
Beyond that fundamental decision, teams are experimenting with varying degrees of anti-dive characteristics. McLaren was already notable for this last year, employing a rather extreme setup—a trend that continues this year. This is observable in the height disparity between the forward pickup point and the rear leg, and McLaren is clearly not unique in this approach.
Based on the initial views of the new Aston Martin, Newey’s creation pushes this to an even greater extent. The front leg’s mounting point is situated as high as possible, while the rear leg is positioned as low as possible. This not only generates the aforementioned anti-dive but also influences the airflow towards the lower regions of the car—which, understanding Newey, has likely been another pivotal consideration.
Lateral Bodywork – Initial Variance Across the Field
Further back on the car, elements resembling the bargeboards from prior F1 periods have reappeared, although this time the FIA intends for the side deflector arrays—or wakeboards—to serve a fundamentally different purpose. Whereas teams previously utilized these components primarily to generate outward airflow, the governing body now seeks to employ them in an effort to minimize disturbed air behind the car.
For that very reason, they were conceived as devices to encourage inward airflow, though the early visuals clearly indicate that teams are attempting to counteract this as much as possible. In this domain too—both in the panel configuration and shaping—teams have opted for diverse solutions, although the Bahrain testing days will offer a clearer perspective. It will be intriguing to ascertain the FIA’s opinion on some of the more overt efforts to create additional outward airflow, as this was not the objective of their 2026 framework.
We then arrive at the feature that—along with the front wing and front suspension—is most visually prominent: the sidepods. On Thursday, the AMR26 captured all attention when it was finally brought out late in the afternoon. Here too, Newey has pursued an aggressive design. The downwash sidepods (a prevalent trend, albeit in diverse forms) are exceptionally tightly integrated, to the extent that there appears to be minimal volume for radiators, resulting in a significant undercut.
Newey’s AMR26, with the nose on the second wing element, aggressive sidepods with underbite inlet, and horns next to the airbox
Notably, Newey has opted for a so-called underbite intake. This is not unexpected, as Newey utilized a similar approach in the previous era at Red Bull. The trend subsequently shifted towards an overbite design, influenced by McLaren’s innovations, although Newey himself was not a proponent of it.
The overall bodywork contouring towards the rear is also very condensed, which further aids in minimizing drag. Under the new regulations, this is a crucial element, given the energy management and drag reduction already necessary to enable the new engine formula to function effectively. It would therefore not be surprising if Newey had placed greater emphasis on this aspect.
Regarding the sidepods – beyond the undercut and downwash philosophy adopted by many teams – Red Bull and Alpine distinguish themselves in different ways. Red Bull chose a very compact design in Barcelona. On social media, it was quickly associated with a “zero-pod” concept, but a front view clarifies that this is certainly not the case – featuring a sidepod wing that incorporates the upper element of the Side Impact Structure.
Further towards the rear, the Red Bull sidepods narrow exceptionally tightly, creating substantial clearance for airflow over the floor edges towards the back and the diffuser area.
Alpine appears to have pursued the converse strategy: very wide sidepods that leave little of the floor edges visible from above, and a waterslide-like profile. As demonstrated by the preceding period, convergence in this area is highly probable or even expected over time, but it is noteworthy that some initial variation exists.
Engine Cover, Bodywork Solutions, and Slotted Diffuser
Concerning the airbox and engine cover, differences are also discernible. Interestingly, the Aston Martin appears to incorporate certain Ferrari characteristics from recent years. In the initial photographs, a triangular airbox with side horns can be observed. These horns, along with the vents on the engine cover and the overall shape, bear a resemblance to what Ferrari has employed in recent seasons.
The compact, triangular airbox of the Ferrari SF-26
This is not unexpected, as technical director Enrico Cardile has relocated from Maranello to the Silverstone-based team, making it logical that this year’s car would feature some ‘Cardile traits’ alongside ‘Newey traits’—and these appear particularly prominent around the engine cover.
Regarding the airbox, Racing Bulls features by far the largest on the grid, in contrast to their narrow sidepod inlets. Notably, Red Bull’s airbox, despite utilizing the identical power unit, is already more compact. Ferrari, consistent with recent years, has taken a further step with a condensed triangular version, unlike the more rounded shapes still visible on most Mercedes-powered teams. Both Red Bull and Ferrari exhibit a rather pronounced shark fin due to relatively slender engine covers, although Ferrari’s—like McLaren’s—is stepped, while Red Bull’s currently is not.
At the rear of the vehicle, teams consistently endeavor to maintain discretion, and this remains true with the visuals shared during the Barcelona test. Comprehensive photographs of the rear suspension are not yet accessible for every team, necessitating patience for a more complete overview in Bahrain.
However, the initial visuals reveal that Aston Martin has positioned the upper wishbone exceptionally high, particularly the rear leg, which aligns with its design philosophy at the front of the car. Moreover, the green team appears to have opted for an above-average rake angle, which, considering some of Newey’s past designs, should not come as a significant surprise either.
Finally, the diffuser garnered considerable attention over the past week, as the flatter floor designs generate significantly less downforce compared to the ground-effect era. This makes extracting maximum performance from the diffuser a compelling challenge for teams. Under the previous regulatory framework, it was critical to completely seal the diffuser. Teams could leverage the powerful airflow from the Venturi tunnels for the diffuser; sealing it was important to create the largest possible pressure differential.
The hole in the diffuser is clearly visible at Mercedes, under the Petronas advertising on the sidepod
This year, the circumstances are different. Because the FIA has simplified the underfloors, that airflow is no longer robust enough to achieve the same efficacy. This accounts for why teams have sought alternative methods to enhance the airflow directed towards the diffuser and, consequently, generate as much downforce as possible in that area.
In the initial views of the Mercedes, a prevalent solution became apparent: an aperture in the diffuser wall that operates in conjunction with the undercut sidepods which channel airflow over the floor edges. Through such an opening, some teams are attempting to harness that airflow to bolster diffuser performance, as, simply put, the more vigorous the airflow channeled towards the diffuser, the greater the downforce that can be generated.
Following Mercedes, this opening was also observed on the Ferrari, Aston Martin, and Red Bull vehicles, with the latter team seemingly pushing this concept to a considerable extreme. On McLaren’s MCL40, this small aperture—as it has been termed in the past—for a slotted diffuser was not yet evident based on the early visuals from Barcelona.
But as is always the case at this stage, teams will undoubtedly introduce further refinements prior to Bahrain and Australia. Or as McLaren’s Neil Houldey summarized on Friday evening: “We’ve got lots and lots of pictures of everyone else’s cars. And again, it’s just useful to have that, to see what other people have been up to.”
And that is precisely the competitive undertaking now commencing for all eleven teams.
