2023 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team

[f1316]

Apologies if this has already been posted:
https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-fe ... /10447448/

It seems pretty plausible to me and is basically still a carry over from the TD. Tl:dr: They need to find a way to run the car at the intended ride and if they do (easier said than done) everything drops into place; if they don’t, it’s a compound effect (ie lack of downforce which makes the tyres slide, exacerbated the harder the tyres are given working window).

[deadhead]

Apologies if this has already been posted:
https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-fe ... /10447448/

It seems pretty plausible to me and is basically still a carry over from the TD. Tl:dr: They need to find a way to run the car at the intended ride and if they do (easier said than done) everything drops into place; if they don’t, it’s a compound effect (ie lack of downforce which makes the tyres slide, exacerbated the harder the tyres are given working window).

They’ve been in that position since Spa 2022 and haven’t been able to find a solution..

[chrisc90]

It's not about the concept you see on top, it's not a W13. It's about getting it into the right working window and about Sainz being incapable of getting anywhere near the car's potential. We're yet to see an un-compromised race for Leclerc to get an idea where the car is at. Sadly, the strategy errors are still there and the pit wall is still bad, Hards for Leclerc were an obvious no-no, but they still did it.

When was Charles compromised in Jeddah? And the hard tyre… everyone else managed the hard fine, so it was either cope with the hard, or do 2 stints on the soft. Or med - med - soft. But the car didn’t have the pace to do that many fast laps on the soft to a) beat the loses from pitting again b) the pace to catch the others up, even if the tyre was the hard.

[Vanja #66]

When was Charles compromised in Jeddah? And the hard tyre… everyone else managed the hard fine, so it was either cope with the hard, or do 2 stints on the soft. Or med - med - soft. But the car didn’t have the pace to do that many fast laps on the soft to a) beat the loses from pitting again b) the pace to catch the others up, even if the tyre was the hard.

viewtopic.php?p=1125073#p1125073

[Sevach]

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arti ... d3326f3137
Another view of the Ferrari struggles.

When was Charles compromised in Jeddah? And the hard tyre… everyone else managed the hard fine, so it was either cope with the hard, or do 2 stints on the soft. Or med - med - soft. But the car didn’t have the pace to do that many fast laps on the soft to a) beat the loses from pitting again b) the pace to catch the others up, even if the tyre was the hard.

viewtopic.php?p=1125073#p1125073

The call with Charles also left me scratching my head...
Why pit him then when in 4/5 laps more he could've gone for mediums? Stroll was of 0 concern in my opinion, if you had a pace advantage overtaking was a foregone conclusion, nothing the guy ahead could do, optimizing race time should've taken a much larger precedence over covering opponents(in my opinion this is an area where Ferrari strategists are particularly weak).

[LM10]

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arti ... d3326f3137
Another view of the Ferrari struggles.

Don't agree with this point of view. But I've never really liked Mark Hughes' way of looking at things. He's trying too hard to mathematically analyze things and forgets to look at the big picture.

Ferrari has not overheaten it's tyres in Q3 and it's not true that Leclerc had less apex speed than Perez in the later stages of the lap. I also disagree with his claim of Leclerc having done an "acrobatic balancing act between braking, cornering and throttle use" to come close to Perez' lap. Instead of thinking of the possibility (also backed up by telemetry) that the Ferrari has got some downforce, he comes up with this explanation.

You either extract the current potential out of the car or you don't. You can't go faster than what the car is capable of. I don't think there was much margin left in Perez' lap either.

[Alonsismo]

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arti ... d3326f3137
Another view of the Ferrari struggles.

When was Charles compromised in Jeddah? And the hard tyre… everyone else managed the hard fine, so it was either cope with the hard, or do 2 stints on the soft. Or med - med - soft. But the car didn’t have the pace to do that many fast laps on the soft to a) beat the loses from pitting again b) the pace to catch the others up, even if the tyre was the hard.

viewtopic.php?p=1125073#p1125073

The call with Charles also left me scratching my head...
Why pit him then when in 4/5 laps more he could've gone for mediums? Stroll was of 0 concern in my opinion, if you had a pace advantage overtaking was a foregone conclusion, nothing the guy ahead could do, optimizing race time should've taken a much larger precedence over covering opponents(in my opinion this is an area where Ferrari strategists are particularly weak).

both ferrari stops had 0 logic.

why stop leclerc and sainz, when they where making laptimes fasters than the cars with hards and they didnt had tyre problems?
and this on a track that has a 100% probability of SC.

[Sevach]

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arti ... d3326f3137
Another view of the Ferrari struggles.

Don't agree with this point of view. But I've never really liked Mark Hughes' way of looking at things. He's trying too hard to mathematically analyze things and forgets to look at the big picture.

Ferrari has not overheaten it's tyres in Q3 and it's not true that Leclerc had less apex speed than Perez in the later stages of the lap. I also disagree with his claim of Leclerc having done an "acrobatic balancing act between braking, cornering and throttle use" to come close to Perez' lap. Instead of thinking of the possibility (also backed up by telemetry) that the Ferrari has got some downforce, he comes up with this explanation.

You either extract the current potential out of the car or you don't. You can't go faster than what the car is capable of. I don't think there was much margin left in Perez' lap either.

Despite the fact that i posted this i also think it's quite a "creative" view of the situation.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/vass ... /10447834/
Vasseur here sounds more logical if a bit on the "look on the bright side" side of the fence.

[AR3-GP]

It's best to just stop reading all of the speculation from the various media outlets. I have seen nothing consistent or coherent. Mostly just wild speculation. It is a uniquely Ferrari problem to have the media invent the problems and the solutions before Ferrari themselves...Let's wait for Chrono GP to invent the new rear suspension for Ferrari

[mzso]

4) not letting him ahead of Sainz, who was embarrassingly slow on the medium tyre, let alone hard

I don't think it mattered, they didn't have the pace against Hamilton at that point, not even Leclerc.

[JPBD1990]

People on twitter are suggesting TD39 has been repealed (apparently being reported by Motorsport Italy)? Is this true? It seems absolutely absurd to reverse a TD, especially mid-season, but I do suspect they’re desperate for this not to be a redbull walkover as teams have been whinging about. Anyone able to confirm?

[LM10]

People on twitter are suggesting TD39 has been repealed (apparently being reported by Motorsport Italy)? Is this true? It seems absolutely absurd to reverse a TD, especially mid-season, but I do suspect they’re desperate for this not to be a redbull walkover as teams have been whinging about. Anyone able to confirm?

Not only people on twitter. But it's Nugnes.

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-ce ... /10448664/

[CaribouBread]

It'll be interesting to see if the team will allow the car to bounce now that the bounce metric is removed. Maybe their holy grail setup is in the bouncing zone.

[Schippke]

Taking this with a mass helping of salt, the article claims that TD39 was already removed ahead of the beginning of the season... but it somewhat would make sense given the revisions of raising the floor/ride-height; Potentially would've made it (or parts of it) obsolete?

Regardless, doesn't change anything with regards to Ferrari's current form... TD or not, hopefully they find a sweet spot (or a noticeable update) for the SF23 and claw back some pace and head the fight for second.

Still cannot see them (or anybody else) beating Red Bull to the titles by season's end...

[mzso]

Taking this with a mass helping of salt, the article claims that TD39 was already removed ahead of the beginning of the season... but it somewhat would make sense given the revisions of raising the floor/ride-height; Potentially would've made it (or parts of it) obsolete?

Regardless, doesn't change anything with regards to Ferrari's current form... TD or not, hopefully they find a sweet spot (or a noticeable update) for the SF23 and claw back some pace and head the fight for second.

Still cannot see them (or anybody else) beating Red Bull to the titles by season's end...

If AM could go from nowhere to where they are now, with their third different car concept since the beginning of last year, a lot of things could happen. I see the best chance for them to catch up with agressive updates. I expect more bumbling from Ferrari. Mercedes may redesign their car this year, which might pan out, but it wouldn't be soon enough to be in contention for the championship. I don't think anyone else is anywhere near.