The history of the beam wing in Formula One has been controversial. For the 2026 season, the FIA outlawed this particular aerodynamic device to improve the efficiency of the cars along the straights. Yet, Ferrari cleverly found a loophole in the regulations and devised an ‘exhaust wing’ which performs a similar job to its banned predecessor. By relocating the gearbox, the ‘exhaust wing’ does comply with FIA regulations, although its ability to relocate hot gases for aerodynamic purposes goes against the spirit of the FIA’s intentions.
The beam wing—a smaller, lower horizontal element that sits just above the diffuser and below the main rear wing—has been a controversial piece of aero in F1 history. It has been banned twice, for two distinct reasons.
The first ban came in 2014 as the new V6 turbo-hybrid power units debuted, and the era of teams managing airflow from hot exhaust gases came to an end. Teams had become experts at “blowing” hot exhaust gases over the beam wing to generate “free” downforce. Removing the wing made this practice significantly harder to achieve with the new V6 units, which featured a heat recovery system designed to add to the overall horsepower produced.
The history of F1’s beam wing
The beam wing acted as a powerful bridge between the diffuser and the top rear wing. It helped “suck” air out from under the car, making the diffuser much more efficient. By removing it, the FIA effectively disconnected these two aerodynamic components, making it harder for teams to recoup the massive downforce lost during that regulation shift.
With the all-new F1 engines now years behind schedule, the FIA banned any further development of the current V6 hybrids in 2022 and ushered in the ‘ground effect’ aero era. The beam wing was allowed to be reintroduced to assist with downforce once again, but it has been banned again starting this season.
The heavy dependence on electrical energy from the new 2026 engines meant cars were predicted to struggle to maintain their pace for the full length of the straights. Banning the beam wing reduced significant drag, allowing the cars to slip through the air more easily. The current cars feature ‘active aero’ (X-Mode and Z-Mode), where both front and rear wings adjust their angle of attack at the driver’s behest, whether on a straight or cornering. A static beam wing would create too much “drag wake” when the main wings are in low-drag mode, essentially hindering the high-speed efficiency the FIA is targeting.
Six more teams now copy Ferrari ‘flow vane’
Ferrari exploited a loophole in the regulations regarding the “rear crash structure” and “wing pylon” zones. They introduced a perfectly legal, small but aggressive vane located directly behind the exhaust, which they call a “flow turning vane.” While it isn’t a “wing” by the letter of the law, it sits exactly where a beam wing would. It acts as a bridge between the diffuser and the rear wing, using exhaust gases to energize the airflow. By placing it within a 10mm tolerance of the centerline of the rear axle, Ferrari complied with bodywork restrictions while achieving the same aerodynamic effect as the banned beam wing: pulling more air through the diffuser to increase downforce.
Now, other F1 teams have started to copy this Ferrari innovation, starting with Haas in China, who purchase the rear of their car from Ferrari. After the five-week break since Japan, six other teams—McLaren, Mercedes, Red Bull, Williams, Alpine, and Cadillac—have all implemented ‘wing’ ideas by exploiting Article C3.9.2 of F1’s technical regulations.
As with Ferrari, these designs are legal under the letter of the law in the 2026 regulations; however, the FIA wishes to clamp down on this for next season. The goal is to prevent an increasing amount of aero trickery in this area, along with an expensive development war. While no formal document to discuss this matter has been issued by the FIA, sources within the teams reveal the FIA’s intention is to ban these “flow turning vanes.” Given this is not a matter of safety, the FIA will require the support of the teams before the matter can be pursued through official channels.
Does the FIA need to interfere in cost cap era?
Something the FIA will likely ban on safety grounds is another innovation seen on the SF-26 before Japan. “Halo wings” act to divert airflow around the driver’s helmet and are attached to the halo downcast. Ferrari argued they are, by definition, a ‘windscreen,’ but were forced to withdraw them in Japan because the materials used were not specified as allowable for an F1 windscreen. This weekend, they have returned to the SF-26, now manufactured from a compliant composite.
Formula One has always been an engineering puzzle. The FIA creates regulations to restrict designs, and engineers find ways around them. In the era before the F1 cost cap, it was common to create components that would trigger a tech war between the bigger teams. Yet, since the introduction of the cost cap, it appears strange that the FIA is determined to outlaw inventive creations. If the development of a component is eye-wateringly expensive and delivers negligible lap time, teams will naturally avoid wasting resources on it.
In other news, FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem announced today that the next era of F1 power will revert to internal combustion engine V8 architecture “with very little electricity.” Now, that’s a rule change most fans will get behind. It is time the manufacturers stopped driving the direction of Formula One power.
Would you like to see more TJ13 Formula 1 coverage? Add us to your favourites list on Google to receive trusted F1 news.
A.J. Hunt is Senior Editor at TJ13, where Andrew oversees editorial standards and contributes to the site’s Formula 1 coverage. A career journalist with experience in both print and digital sports media, Andrew trained in investigative journalism and has written for a range of European sports outlets.
At TJ13, Andrew plays a central role in shaping the site’s output, working across breaking news, analysis, and long-form features. Andrew’s responsibilities include fact-checking, refining editorial structure, and ensuring consistency in reporting across a fast-moving news cycle.
Andrew’s work focuses particularly on the intersection of Formula 1 politics, regulation, and team strategy. Andrew closely follows developments involving the FIA, team leadership, and driver market dynamics, helping to provide context behind the sport’s biggest stories.
With experience covering multiple seasons of Formula 1’s modern hybrid era, Andrew has developed a detailed understanding of how regulatory changes and competitive shifts influence the grid. Andrew’s editorial approach prioritises clarity and context, aiming to help readers navigate complex developments within the sport.
In addition to editorial duties, Andrew is particularly interested in how media narratives shape fan perception of Formula 1, and how reporting can balance speed with accuracy in an increasingly digital news environment.
