2025 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team

[Xyz22]

Perhaps there is some store in structural rigidity being questioned, from 3rd party stories.

A distinctive attribute of lowered torsional "chassis" performance is as described here. Ultimately it fails to "enact" the geometry thats supposed to be applied through suspension design.

Trackside engineering response is to raise spring rates ...... which isn't a substitute, makes some changes but often to narrow the performance envelope. It CAN luck into a opportunistic window of tyre temperature and performance related to that, but superfast in its disappearance outside of that.

Higher rated springs Ultimately ask more and more of chassis torsional peak, making the answer to raise that through structural consideration and not fully accessible whatever spring and suspension changes are made.

Comments on gearbox and looking at the gears/shafts/reliability are not where it's at, usually. Just a consequence.

Unless Ferrari are different, these cars use a "exoskeleton" rear structure from PU backwards, this to take all chassis loading in that part of structural input.

Tentatively, the overall picture looks in this relm, the other principle components being tub and PU itself.

I have no idea where the real issue is.
What we know is that the SF 25 is around 0.45s slower than the best car. The understeer in low speed is also absolutely clear even from random onboards.

Both drivers are suffering from a lack of rotation and understeer, that could be from a frontend thats too strong no?

No clue.
Anyway Leclerc said they have a huge step forward in terms of balance but there is just not enough performance in the car for now. I hope the race will be dry so he will be able to confirm this good step in race trim as well. Could be useful for Lewis as well.

[Sevach]

Perhaps there is some store in structural rigidity being questioned, from 3rd party stories.

A distinctive attribute of lowered torsional "chassis" performance is as described here. Ultimately it fails to "enact" the geometry thats supposed to be applied through suspension design.

Trackside engineering response is to raise spring rates ...... which isn't a substitute, makes some changes but often to narrow the performance envelope. It CAN luck into a opportunistic window of tyre temperature and performance related to that, but superfast in its disappearance outside of that.

Higher rated springs Ultimately ask more and more of chassis torsional peak, making the answer to raise that through structural consideration and not fully accessible whatever spring and suspension changes are made.

Comments on gearbox and looking at the gears/shafts/reliability are not where it's at, usually. Just a consequence.

Unless Ferrari are different, these cars use a "exoskeleton" rear structure from PU backwards, this to take all chassis loading in that part of structural input.

Tentatively, the overall picture looks in this relm, the other principle components being tub and PU itself.

Last time we heard structural rigidity problems they weren't fixed in that season, Ferrari used their 2021 "jokers" on a new gearbox to finally fix it.

[ringo]

Both drivers are suffering from a lack of rotation and understeer, that could be from a frontend thats too strong no?

The front is too weak compared to the rear axle in most of the corners.
Maybe the setup that is used is one that they have to take off front wing to balance the car because the rear is weak and doesnt grip in some corners. Then in other corners with more aero grip, the aero balance shifts and the rear gets loaded more and thus stronger leaving the front relatively weak.

[ScuderiaLeo]

You’re right about it being an outstanding effort and likely P3 was out of reach, but you still can’t help but think not having a final run can’t have been helpful. I’m not sure if he was out of new tyres or what, but other cars improved - and the first run Charles was right there with Max - so I actually think he could have found a little more time if he was able to do his best lap at that time on the session.

By "virtually" nothing I meant that even if he'd managed another tenth in his last run, it wouldn't have been enough for P3. So considering the car's relative pace, P4 was the maximum (also reliant on the Mercs messing up) and that's what he got. But yes I agree with you in general.

--

Federico's analysis of the session:

Leclerc truly extracted every ounce of potential from the SF-25, which performed well in the first sector, especially through the "snake" where data showed Leclerc ahead of everyone up to turn 4-5. But from that point on, the car’s limitations became evident: starting at turn 6, you need stability under load and strong rear traction, and the structural limits of the car (notably its less-than-optimal ride height) made it impossible to push beyond what we saw. In the middle sector, Leclerc was only half a tenth behind Norris and matched Verstappen. The Ferrari showed solid aerodynamic efficiency on the straights, but there was some shakiness coming out of the hairpin—though much less than in free practice.

In the final chicane, Norris, Russell, and Leclerc all had very similar lines and times. For Ferrari, that's another promising sign after the struggles in the first two free practice sessions. The overnight work from the Maranello team—particularly on the suspension—paid off with tangible results, especially in some of the critical corners. It’s the first time in three races that trackside adjustments have yielded this much, a clear indicator of a growing understanding of the car.

Hamilton admitted he was aiming for a different setup than Leclerc and, for the first time, openly spoke about running a higher ride height than would be optimal. So the SF-25 remains a work in progress on that front, as everyone waits to see what upgrades might come as early as the next race in Bahrain.

[SoulPancake13]

They need to either figure out how to run the car lower or add rear downforce that works at different heights. Right now, the car is so slow in low speed but one of, if not, the strongest in high speed.

[SoulPancake13]

The ranking in qualifying for me was:

- McL
- MB
- RB
- Ferrari

Ferrari is very good in high speed, mediocre in medium speed and terrible in low speed.

Norris completely --- up the last chicane while Piastri completely --- up the first sector. The real gap to McL is over 0.5s.

Red Bull are second force for sure imo. The free practice runs were done with a super low engine mode.

[Silent Storm]

The ranking in qualifying for me was:

- McL
- MB
- RB
- Ferrari

Ferrari is very good in high speed, mediocre in medium speed and terrible in low speed.

Norris completely --- up the last chicane while Piastri completely --- up the first sector. The real gap to McL is over 0.5s.

Red Bull are second force for sure imo. The free practice runs were done with a super low engine mode.

If George and both McLaren's hadn't messed up their final lap they would have been top 3.

Charles did a perfect lap squeezing everything out of that Ferrari and George didn't improve on his second lap thanks to his mistake early on and yet their laptimes are so close.

[ringo]

I think Mercedes are second for all round perfromance.
Redbull a close third but higher and narrower peak.
Ferrari..if they can come down to the ground..would be strong! Easier said than done.
Maybe they need new springs, dampers, and bump rubbers and even a floor.

[Farnborough]

Perhaps there is some store in structural rigidity being questioned, from 3rd party stories.

A distinctive attribute of lowered torsional "chassis" performance is as described here. Ultimately it fails to "enact" the geometry thats supposed to be applied through suspension design.

Trackside engineering response is to raise spring rates ...... which isn't a substitute, makes some changes but often to narrow the performance envelope. It CAN luck into a opportunistic window of tyre temperature and performance related to that, but superfast in its disappearance outside of that.

Higher rated springs Ultimately ask more and more of chassis torsional peak, making the answer to raise that through structural consideration and not fully accessible whatever spring and suspension changes are made.

Comments on gearbox and looking at the gears/shafts/reliability are not where it's at, usually. Just a consequence.

Unless Ferrari are different, these cars use a "exoskeleton" rear structure from PU backwards, this to take all chassis loading in that part of structural input.

Tentatively, the overall picture looks in this relm, the other principle components being tub and PU itself.

Last time we heard structural rigidity problems they weren't fixed in that season, Ferrari used their 2021 "jokers" on a new gearbox to finally fix it.

I don't feel (through comment in posts following that one) that it's generally understood by those contributing as to just how fundamental that quality is. Nothing can be fully enacted from ideal suspension geometry in competent entirety if there exists a problem like that.
There's obviously some journalist "smoke" from someone/somewhere associated with the team through national reporting channels .... at least some possible "smouldering" that could be one of their concerns.

There wouldn't appear a desire to discuss it further here though, or the understanding to debate it sensibly. We'll have to wait and see if it turns to flames eventually

The suspension and aero look very promising, but if true about structural competence, then that will mostly come to nothing against a very potent opposition.

[Luscion]

Hamilton has confirmed a known factor: Ferrari cannot run low. Suzuka on the eve was clearly a defensive race. The understeer comes from a rear end that struggles to follow the pointed front end. We will soon return to the corrective measures for Bahrain.

https://autoracer.it/it/ferrari-suzuka- ... c-hamilton

The positive news for Ferrari's men is that the SF-25 has shown that it's possible to find different balances and compromises, but it remains a short blanket to which performance needs to be added. The main problem seemed to be the onset of understeer, which appears to be dictated mainly by a rear end that struggles to follow the pointed front end of the SF-25 which thus saturates very quickly and, in case the drivers try to force the entry and rotation of the car, they can run into rear-end losses that were seen both in the snake and in the long hairpin. In this sense, the drivers can hope that the new floor coming will help the rear end, with Lewis Hamilton also confirming what AutoRacer had revealed: "We are forced to run higher than we would like", undoubtedly losing effectiveness at the rear and with settings that are far from optimal.

[SoulPancake13]

The ranking in qualifying for me was:

- McL
- MB
- RB
- Ferrari

Ferrari is very good in high speed, mediocre in medium speed and terrible in low speed.

Norris completely --- up the last chicane while Piastri completely --- up the first sector. The real gap to McL is over 0.5s.

Red Bull are second force for sure imo. The free practice runs were done with a super low engine mode.

If George and both McLaren's hadn't messed up their final lap they would have been top 3.

Charles did a perfect lap squeezing everything out of that Ferrari and George didn't improve on his second lap thanks to his mistake early on and yet their laptimes are so close.

Charles was also slower on his second lap to be fair. That has nothing to really do with me putting Red Bull as second force. Max won pole and his ideal lap was less than a tenth off of either McLaren's ideal laps - no other car is that close.

[ringo]

A good watch that applies to ground effect cars. It's about redbull mainly but somewhat hints at how these cars have to be setup.

[Fluido]

It seems Lewis is simply not fast enough any more, he is missing this last two tenths that make a difference.

Does anyone think he will return to his old form?

[Seanspeed]

It seems Lewis is simply not fast enough any more, he is missing this last two tenths that make a difference.

Does anyone think he will return to his old form?

This feels like Youtube comment section-level bait, after what we saw last race weekend. You know it, we know it. Nobody should take it seriously.

The car is the only thing any Ferrari fan should be caring about right now.

[f1316]

The ranking in qualifying for me was:

- McL
- MB
- RB
- Ferrari

Ferrari is very good in high speed, mediocre in medium speed and terrible in low speed.

Norris completely --- up the last chicane while Piastri completely --- up the first sector. The real gap to McL is over 0.5s.

Red Bull are second force for sure imo. The free practice runs were done with a super low engine mode.

If George and both McLaren's hadn't messed up their final lap they would have been top 3.

Charles did a perfect lap squeezing everything out of that Ferrari and George didn't improve on his second lap thanks to his mistake early on and yet their laptimes are so close.

George did two laps that didn’t seem his best - and probably should have been ahead of Charles - but Lando was very clear that he got the most out of the car. There were four runs between the two McLaren cars in Q3 and so I think if those were all littered with mistakes then that’s still the level of the car (if it’s that hard to string a lap together) but that doesn’t actually seem to be the case, based on Lando’s comments.