APEX RACEWIRE Newsroom
Red Bull's Gamble: Verstappen's Crashes Stem From Arrogant Design
As the FIA scrutinizes Red Bull's rear wing, F1 expert Gary Anderson exposes a deeper, almost arrogant design flaw that sent Max Verstappen into the gravel multiple times.
By Kritische Hans van den Broekma - 2026-07-08T08:14:40.000Z - 3 min read
Ah, the FIA is once again taking a look at Red Bull's and Ferrari's rear wings. Right on cue, after a few spectacular excursions by our world champion. You'd almost think something was amiss, wouldn't you? The data is being analyzed, and the differences between conventional DRS systems and the 'flip-over' versions are under scrutiny. What a surprise that such a thorough investigation only comes after drivers seem to push the laws of physics to their absolute limit.
However, according to the peerless Gary Anderson, who evidently looks beyond the nose on his face, that 'flip-over' rear wing from Red Bull is merely a symptom. The real issue lies deeper: the extremely narrow aerodynamic 'operating window' within which Red Bull designs its car. Apparently, leaving a little margin for safety is too much to ask. It comes down to those crucial milliseconds in which the wing mechanically closes and airflow – that capricious lady – must cleanly reattach to the wing. And it is precisely that reattachment that makes the difference between glory and the gravel trap.
Picture this: regulations dictate that wings must change position in less than 0.4 seconds. Red Bull's system rotates up to five times faster during those final, hair-raising five degrees of closure compared to 'conventional' designs. That sounds like sheer brilliance, doesn't it? Unfortunately, this leaves the airflow significantly less time to properly reattach to the wing. This detail, dear reader, is the critical factor that makes Red Bull's crashes so mysterious to the untrained eye.
The result? In fast corners like the infamous Turn 9 in Austria or Stowe at Silverstone, where you barely touch the brakes, Max is already turning the steering wheel while the wing is still busy convincing the airflow to return. Zero stability, zero downforce at the exact moment you need it most. And bang, off you go again. It's as if the designers thought: 'Why settle for stability when you can chase the absolute edge?'
Red Bull has always pushed the boundaries, and let's be honest, it has brought them success. But there is a clear difference between innovation and sending your driver out with dangerously tight margins. When you only have a single degree left before the wing gives up the ghost entirely, you're no longer innovating – you're flirting with the crash barrier. A car and all its components require a functional operating window, and Red Bull's is evidently 'a bit too small'.
The big question now is: will Red Bull dare to take a step back and design a wing that actually works in practice rather than just being theoretically perfect? Or will the FIA, as so often happens, have to play the 'adult in the room' and kill off this risky design? Because with such a minimal operating window, it's no wonder Verstappen occasionally loses control. A case of 'working the aerodynamic surfaces too hard', as Gary Anderson delicately points out. Chapeau for the courage, but what is it costing us in scrap metal?