> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.the-race.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# How F1 teams are tackling Mexico's altitude challenge in 2026
- URL: https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/how-f1-teams-are-tackling-mexicos-altitude-challenge-in-2026/
- Published: 2026-10-31T14:06:54.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-31T14:09:34.000Z
- Description: Mexico City's 2000-metre-plus altitude demands a lot of an F1 car. Gary Anderson explains the aero compromises the top teams have settled on
- Author: Gary Anderson
- Tags: Formula 1, #mercedes, #ferrari, #mclaren, #red-bull, #mexican-grand-prix, #secondary_feature_2

The Mexico City track is one of the outliers of the Formula 1 season, mainly because of the altitude: it is 2240 meters above sea level, which equates to roughly 25% less dense air, so it makes everything just that bit more difficult.

For the drivers it's basically harder work, but for the cars it's a very different story, because at that altitude the cars will produce less downforce and with that less drag. In the past, teams would use more or less Monaco-specification wings but this season with the change in wing regulations and active aero they don't have that possibility.

So, basically the ars will slide around more but the reduced drag means that top speeds are even faster than normal. This means that you will arrive at the end of those long straights faster and require a longer braking duration, which generates more heat in the brakes.

These cars are turbocharged so in reality even though the turbo has to work harder and will be running at or as near to its maximum rpm as possible for most of the lap, it will still produce similar levels of power output. This means the engine's heat rejection isn't reduced, so you need to cool the cars roughly 25% more than you normally have to.

Also, as it's an electrical energy-rich circuit layout you will also generate more heat into the battery pack and its control systems simply from harvesting and deployment.

Basically, everything needs higher levels of cooling and below I have had a look at the top-four teams' changes from what they normally run. It's not easy to alter the inlet area on these cars as it is part of the side impact structure, so changing it would basically require redoing the side impact tests, so instead everyone will focus on the cooling exits, size, location and quantity.

First of all we can have a look at the rear exits.

## McLaren

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/dd/af/ddafbd99-2ccd-468c-b622-4b3cccf80b49/content/images/2026/10/comparison-engine-cover-McLaren-mexico-marked.png)

The red ellipse highlights the rearwards-facing outlet. McLaren has raised the section above the exhaust outlet to increase the exit area.

## Mercedes

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/dd/af/ddafbd99-2ccd-468c-b622-4b3cccf80b49/content/images/2026/10/image0--22-.jpeg)

It already ran a spec-two outlet at Austin and as can be seen by the red ellipse Mercedes has retained that for Mexico. Now it is more of a triangular opening, which it has achieved by lifting the upper engine cover surface, especially in the central section, above the exhaust outlet.

## Ferrari

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/dd/af/ddafbd99-2ccd-468c-b622-4b3cccf80b49/content/images/2026/10/image2--12-.jpeg)

Ferrari has gone for simply a bigger exit at the sides, as highlighted by the two green ellipses. The central section is similar in height to the previous version.

## Red Bull

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/dd/af/ddafbd99-2ccd-468c-b622-4b3cccf80b49/content/images/2026/10/comparison-engine-coiver-Red-Bull-mexico.jpg)

From what I can see, Red Bull hasn't really bothered to alter the outlet in this area.

The rear exits are in more or less the same position and, in reality, are more or less the same size for all the teams - so the effect they have on the overall cars efficiency will be well understood.

When you are getting the maximum from that area then it's onto the sidepod and engine-cover louvre outlets. This is the most critical area as far as maximising the cooling is concerned, and major changes in this area can affect the airflow structure of the rest of the car coming along behind. It's not just about bigger louvres, it's more about placement relative to the body-surface pressure and how and where those louvres are placed can have a major influence.

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/dd/af/ddafbd99-2ccd-468c-b622-4b3cccf80b49/content/images/2026/10/comaparison-cooling-louvres-top-teams-Mexico--1--1.jpg)

The top two cars in this comparison, Mercedes and Ferrari, are fairly similar in placement and both have two fairly well-defined locations. These positions are normally placed where the internal radiator flow is at its weakest.

The McLaren on the other hand has a more aesthetically pleasing placing and the fact that it all connects together also adds to the aesthetics. My sentiments are that as long as it achieves the objective, why go for ugly when it can be visually appealing to the eye?

Red Bull on the other hand externally looks like it has made the fewest changes to compensate for the altitude in Mexico. Perhaps it was overcooled at other races but I would doubt this - as most teams will push the limits for each individual track.

That's all the engine and its ancillary cooling requirement changes compared. The other big cooling requirement is for the brakes and it's difficult to see who has done the best job there.

For the teams, it's difficult to simulate those early race laps when the car is at its heaviest and you are running in traffic; when the brakes overheat, the only way to cool them down is to use them less - which means more lifting and coasting.

So, who has done the best job on all of this while minimising the aerodynamic losses? I think it's going to be Sunday night before we know that.