2025 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team

[ringo]

Talking about the title right now is borderline far-fetched.
Ferrari needs to fix the car to even be 2nd fastest. Right now, overall, they are 4th fastest.

I don’t think the data bears that out. Leclerc had better race pace than Russell with a broken fw and fell back after running most of the race in dirty air. In China at least, I think Ferrari was quite clearly the second fastest car. That doesn’t discount the fact that I also think talk of titles is far fetched at the moment and more fundamental improvements will be needed before you can even start to think in those terms.

I fully agree with this, I think that while one can argue based on the opening 2 weekends Ferrari are 4th best, Results alone do not always tell the real story. In my opinion, I also think that Ferrari are considerably better than 4th best and arguably 2nd best, at least based on the China weekend...

I don't know what you are smoking, be it hopium, or otherwise, but please share a few ounces.
Ferrari is the clear 4th fastest car. it was the case in Winter testing, Australia Qualifying, and the China race.
You really cannot decipher what the performance would have been from Charles with an underweight car with a wing flexing on the straights. Likewise Lewis and the low ride height. The cars were illegal on these 3 fronts.

All the top 5 teams have shown flashes of having the best pace, but only in moments. The best car has top performace across the whole weekend like Mlcaren. Mercedes are second best tied with redbull, as it really has no weakness at this stage. Redbull had very strong pace on the hard tyres in China, and had very good form in Australia.
These three teams are at the sharp end. Ferrari sadly is like Williams at this point. Just flashes in the pan when it comes to pace. Very promising but no solid presence at the front.
Hamilton pretty much stole that Sprint win. A case of running in clean air, and having a good base setup when the others did not find a sweet spot so early in the weekend.

[SB15]

I don’t think the data bears that out. Leclerc had better race pace than Russell with a broken fw and fell back after running most of the race in dirty air. In China at least, I think Ferrari was quite clearly the second fastest car. That doesn’t discount the fact that I also think talk of titles is far fetched at the moment and more fundamental improvements will be needed before you can even start to think in those terms.

I fully agree with this, I think that while one can argue based on the opening 2 weekends Ferrari are 4th best, Results alone do not always tell the real story. In my opinion, I also think that Ferrari are considerably better than 4th best and arguably 2nd best, at least based on the China weekend...

Ferrari is the clear 4th fastest car.

Hamilton pretty much stole that Sprint win. A case of running in clean air, and having a good base setup when the others did not find a sweet spot so early in the weekend.

It wasn’t just that. I don’t understand how the many people on this thread or everywhere else in the F1 world took notice that Ferrari’s performance is really based on running lower to the ground…. Or maybe too low to the ground.

Like do you all know that the other top teams: McLaren, Redbull and Mercedes can literally do the same by adjusting their ride height extremely close if they wanted to? Why wouldn’t they? Oh I don’t know, I guess the DSQ for Hamilton proved why.

That new floor won’t solve the fundamental issue because this is a mechanical issue that needs to solved, which they can’t, because the rear suspension is locked for this year and plus the budget cap exists. Ferrari idiotically have not followed the other teams trends by going Push-rod in the rear, now they’re paying for it.

If Ferrari does run the car at an optimal ride height, then they maybe far off the pace than anyone, including me, realizes.

[ringo]

I was surprised they did not go pushrod rear given that they claimed that they were taking risks and maximizing the best concepts. Yet they kept a vestige of the SF24, the pullrod rear.
Not to say the pullrod is to blame, but it's curious as to why they kept it. It supposedly gave good tyre wear characteristics but that's not so evident now.

[Chuckjr]

I fully agree with this, I think that while one can argue based on the opening 2 weekends Ferrari are 4th best, Results alone do not always tell the real story. In my opinion, I also think that Ferrari are considerably better than 4th best and arguably 2nd best, at least based on the China weekend...

Ferrari is the clear 4th fastest car.

Hamilton pretty much stole that Sprint win. A case of running in clean air, and having a good base setup when the others did not find a sweet spot so early in the weekend.

It wasn’t just that. I don’t understand how the many people on this thread or everywhere else in the F1 world took notice that Ferrari’s performance is really based on running lower to the ground…. Or maybe too low to the ground.

Like do you all know that the other top teams: McLaren, Redbull and Mercedes can literally do the same by adjusting their ride height extremely close if they wanted to? Why wouldn’t they? Oh I don’t know, I guess the DSQ for Hamilton proved why.

This 100%. Ham did well in the sprint because there wasn’t time for the plank to wear so running it low didn’t matter so of course they are faster with it set like it can’t be for a race.

[Seanspeed]

Too many people are jumping to certain conclusions that we really dont know that much about in reality. Truth is probably more complicated than any of the simplistic explanations here, as is usually the case. If it were really so simple, then no team would ever mess these things up.

[Farnborough]

I fully agree with this, I think that while one can argue based on the opening 2 weekends Ferrari are 4th best, Results alone do not always tell the real story. In my opinion, I also think that Ferrari are considerably better than 4th best and arguably 2nd best, at least based on the China weekend...

Ferrari is the clear 4th fastest car.

Hamilton pretty much stole that Sprint win. A case of running in clean air, and having a good base setup when the others did not find a sweet spot so early in the weekend.

It wasn’t just that. I don’t understand how the many people on this thread or everywhere else in the F1 world took notice that Ferrari’s performance is really based on running lower to the ground…. Or maybe too low to the ground.

Like do you all know that the other top teams: McLaren, Redbull and Mercedes can literally do the same by adjusting their ride height extremely close if they wanted to? Why wouldn’t they? Oh I don’t know, I guess the DSQ for Hamilton proved why.

That new floor won’t solve the fundamental issue because this is a mechanical issue that needs to solved, which they can’t, because the rear suspension is locked for this year and plus the budget cap exists. Ferrari idiotically have not followed the other teams trends by going Push-rod in the rear, now they’re paying for it.

If Ferrari does run the car at an optimal ride height, then they maybe far off the pace than anyone, including me, realizes.

That specific method makes no difference. Anyone offering that view doesn't understand the arrangement of these cars.

Pull OR push is absolutely not the reason.

[MattLightBlue]

I fully agree with this, I think that while one can argue based on the opening 2 weekends Ferrari are 4th best, Results alone do not always tell the real story. In my opinion, I also think that Ferrari are considerably better than 4th best and arguably 2nd best, at least based on the China weekend...

Ferrari is the clear 4th fastest car.

Hamilton pretty much stole that Sprint win. A case of running in clean air, and having a good base setup when the others did not find a sweet spot so early in the weekend.

It wasn’t just that. I don’t understand how the many people on this thread or everywhere else in the F1 world took notice that Ferrari’s performance is really based on running lower to the ground…. Or maybe too low to the ground.

Like do you all know that the other top teams: McLaren, Redbull and Mercedes can literally do the same by adjusting their ride height extremely close if they wanted to? Why wouldn’t they? Oh I don’t know, I guess the DSQ for Hamilton proved why.

That new floor won’t solve the fundamental issue because this is a mechanical issue that needs to solved, which they can’t, because the rear suspension is locked for this year and plus the budget cap exists. Ferrari idiotically have not followed the other teams trends by going Push-rod in the rear, now they’re paying for it.

If Ferrari does run the car at an optimal ride height, then they maybe far off the pace than anyone, including me, realizes.

It is impossible they can’t fix a rigidity issue in the suspension. It is literally a matter of adding patches of carbon fiber where needed.
Of course it is not that simple, hundreds of engineers know the car features off memory.
There must be some drivability reason why they need to keep those rear suspension settings.
IMO they will end up changing the floor to mitigate the problem.

[Farnborough]

Ferrari is the clear 4th fastest car.

Hamilton pretty much stole that Sprint win. A case of running in clean air, and having a good base setup when the others did not find a sweet spot so early in the weekend.

It wasn’t just that. I don’t understand how the many people on this thread or everywhere else in the F1 world took notice that Ferrari’s performance is really based on running lower to the ground…. Or maybe too low to the ground.

Like do you all know that the other top teams: McLaren, Redbull and Mercedes can literally do the same by adjusting their ride height extremely close if they wanted to? Why wouldn’t they? Oh I don’t know, I guess the DSQ for Hamilton proved why.

That new floor won’t solve the fundamental issue because this is a mechanical issue that needs to solved, which they can’t, because the rear suspension is locked for this year and plus the budget cap exists. Ferrari idiotically have not followed the other teams trends by going Push-rod in the rear, now they’re paying for it.

If Ferrari does run the car at an optimal ride height, then they maybe far off the pace than anyone, including me, realizes.

It is impossible they can’t fix a rigidity issue in the suspension. It is literally a matter of adding patches of carbon fiber where needed.
Of course it is not that simple, hundreds of engineers know the car features off memory.
There must be some drivability reason why they need to keep those rear suspension settings.
IMO they will end up changing the floor to mitigate the problem.

Yes, agree. The collective mind within Ferrari simply is not a match for that within McL, proven with evidence beyond argument currently.
If anyone commenting has seen a floor after a race distance, then would realise emphatically its being used to inhibit suspension movement at that critical level in chassis proximity to track surface. There's not much left of it in many places, making that plank part unusable further. They are (all of them) judging that characteristic wear to stay just inside regulated measurements post race. Its part of this regulation set.
Ferrari have history in this. With their "method" being outlawed in 2022 with Mercedes loading the rules gun ..... to shoot both Ferrari feet off .... figuratively speaking. All while the RB layout sailed serenely onward.
Ferrari also excluded in 2024 with plank wear too, shows how marginal they work (that's expected though in these rules) and not just a problem within this years chassis design and implementation.
They clearly need to understand more about this. The problem is easy to see and state, the answer much more elusive.

Knowledge of the "j-type" damper is useful here (so named to confuse observers trying to understand what it did) and commissioned by McL from someone with a extraordinary broad view and application in electronics, more specifically a mechanical version of capacitor in it's arrangement. Banned now under these regs, but a similar approach from McL may have led them to another critical thinking solution in this field. How that interaction with floor load completes is crucial in understanding the control needed, that's Ferrari's technical team task right now.

[Cs98]

I wouldn't rule out that Ferrari are 2nd fastest, I wouldn't rule out that they are 4th fastest. We've seen glimpses that could indicate both, but not enough sample size yet to know for sure. The performance in China was deceptive. Fastest in the sprint and Leclerc clearly had a lot of pace in the race, but had a very sub-optimal session due to the damage and traffic.

[Farnborough]

Certainly hard to be definitive with that we've so far seen.

It's got pace in it, but our view obscured by operational variance currently. To me it looks promising, but deep, deep thinking within the team is needed to grip that with both hands.

[venkyhere]

Fastest in the sprint

This is not a valid data point, IMHO. They ran super-low in sprint knowing that plank check doesn't happen post sprint. Other teams didn't go this way, otherwise, even they could have been much faster too. When Ferrari had to increase the 'base ride height' from sprint to race, taking into account more fuel load and possibly more worn tyres in race situation, they went too optimistic - if other teams increased base ride height from sprint to race by "x" , Ferrari can't get away with the same x , because their suspension (due to some other constraint) is forced to be 'softer' than others => more roll in the corners, more squat in the straights => more plank wear.
This softer suspension restriction vis-a-vis race ride height tradeoff, is what we saw as the change from FP3 to Q/R in Australia as well. So two races with same opposing constraints - points to something fundamental in development, not something that can be solved by 'setup changes' over a weekend.

[Farnborough]

Fastest in the sprint

This is not a valid data point, IMHO. They ran super-low in sprint knowing that plank check doesn't happen post sprint. Other teams didn't go this way, otherwise, even they could have been much faster too. When Ferrari had to increase the 'base ride height' from sprint to race, taking into account more fuel load and possibly more worn tyres in race situation, they went too optimistic - if other teams increased base ride height from sprint to race by "x" , Ferrari can't get away with the same x , because their suspension (due to some other constraint) is forced to be 'softer' than others => more roll in the corners, more squat in the straights => more plank wear.
This softer suspension restriction vis-a-vis race ride height tradeoff, is what we saw as the change from FP3 to Q/R in Australia as well. So two races with same opposing constraints - points to something fundamental in development, not something that can be solved by 'setup changes' over a weekend.

I've mixed feelings about the explanation here. They all absolutely know they can set for considerably less start kg, no team is going miss that detail. The sprint plank can be swapped after finishing. They aren't going to start full race programme with plank wear in place. None of them.

Setting the car lower to gain pace and trying not to wear the plank is known .... MV lifting in Belgium through eau rouge an example of that, I believe. Static height set for maximum pace throughout circuit to give lap time, consideration through lifting as tradeoff.

LH and team got it exactly right in China sprint event, no doubt about it. The others not so. Relative pace of SF25 still unclear though.

[MattLightBlue]

I've mixed feelings about the explanation here. They all absolutely know they can set for considerably less start kg, no team is going miss that detail. The sprint plank can be swapped after finishing. They aren't going to start full race programme with plank wear in place. None of them.

Setting the car lower to gain pace and trying not to wear the plank is known .... MV lifting in Belgium through eau rouge an example of that, I believe. Static height set for maximum pace throughout circuit to give lap time, consideration through lifting as tradeoff.

LH and team got it exactly right in China sprint event, no doubt about it. The others not so. Relative pace of SF25 still unclear though.

It seems to me they have better understanding of base setup than other teams at the start of the weekend, but they are not so good at improving after FP sessions. On the other hand, RB does the opposite; McLaren improves also a lot lately from Friday to Saturday.

[Farnborough]

It's very clear that McL are floating a little above these next 3 team as it currently stands. The intensity of thinking amongst the teams is a fascinating part of F1. Nobody can really BS with the outcome what it is in very public view.

This SF 25 is quite close, without the decision to stay out on dry tyre in 1st race, then the double DSQ in China we'd be looking at a different overview of "banked " performance for Ferrari, at whatever pace they can run.

It shows just how much they need to eliminate extraneous error in delivery, else they'll not even beat MB & RB.

Front running pace looks, at a stretch, within reasonable grasp. But not with operational baginess.

[Luscion]

From Gazzetta - no upgrades for Ferrari for Suzuka but they're making adjustments to the front and rear suspension, they're convinced it can already unlock the car's potential without the upgrades. Upgrades in Bahrain and Miami.

https://www.gazzetta.it/Formula-1/02-04 ... refresh_ce