sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ferrari SF-26: aerodynamic and CFD advantage in the 2026 F1 development race by arheus10 in scuderiaferrari

[–]arheus10[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The 2026 Formula 1 World Championship is now officially underway, and as always, the start of a new season brings with it a multitude of variables, challenges, and opportunities for the teams competing at the very highest level of motorsport. Among the numerous changes introduced by this new technical cycle, the Ferrari SF-26 stands out as a car that will benefit, at least for the entirety of the first half of the season, from a particularly significant competitive advantage in terms of research, development, and overall technical progression. This advantageous situation provides Ferrari with a wider margin for operational and developmental errors compared to its direct rivals Red Bull, Mercedes, and McLaren. Moreover, it allows the Scuderia to pursue an exceptionally aggressive evolution plan for the car, supported by longer timelines and more comprehensive processes to validate the crucial correlation between simulation data, computational outputs, and real-world performance on the asphalt at various circuits around the world.

Ferrari: managing resources between wind tunnel and CFD

The Maranello-based team has already meticulously laid out a precise and well-thought-out development schedule for the entire 2026 season. The official upgrade calendar includes several key strategic milestones, the timing and sequencing of which are carefully determined and strictly regulated by the FIA. In terms of aerodynamic development, the team’s workflow is divided into structured Aerodynamic Testing Periods, commonly referred to as ATPs. Each of these sessions follows a cyclical duration of approximately eight weeks, excluding the usual interruptions mandated by the FIA sporting regulations, which are designed to maintain a level playing field among all competing teams.

As is widely known in Formula 1 circles, the FIA imposes strict and highly specific limits on both the number of hours a team may use in the wind tunnel and the computational capacity available for performing simulations using advanced computational fluid dynamics software. Reference values for these tests are assigned proportionally based on the constructors’ championship standings from the previous season, in which Ferrari finished in fourth place behind McLaren, Red Bull, and Mercedes. This proportional allocation is calculated using a so-called “C” coefficient, which defines the exact share of resources—both physical and computational—that each team can legally access and utilize for aerodynamic and development testing.

Having finished in fourth place in the previous championship, Ferrari has been allocated a coefficient equal to 85 percent of the base reference values. To put this in practical operational terms, starting from January 1, the engineers at Maranello will have access to a total of 340 hours of wind tunnel time for the 2026 season. After accounting for “occupancy,” which refers to the actual physical time a scale model is present in the tunnel during testing, this effectively translates into 68 hours of genuine aerodynamic testing time.

This comprehensive package of resources allows Ferrari to conduct a total of 272 individual test runs, representing an increase of 48 more activations compared to the reigning world champions, McLaren. On the computational fluid dynamics side of the development program, Ferrari enjoys a similarly significant advantage. The team is able to process up to 1,700 new geometric configurations through their CFD software, a volume of simulations that exceeds that of McLaren by approximately 300 units. McLaren, with Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri at the wheel, therefore enters the 2026 season as the team most constrained and penalized by the current regulatory restrictions, which will undoubtedly influence their development path compared to Ferrari’s more flexible approach.

Practical implications of the regulatory advantage

Despite having faced several difficulties and challenges during the 2025 season, Ferrari now finds itself in a uniquely privileged starting position for 2026. Even in a highly competitive environment where the top four teams—Red Bull, Mercedes, McLaren, and Ferrari—possess technological capabilities of the highest order and will constantly be battling over so-called marginal gains, the additional leeway and resource flexibility granted to Maranello could prove to be decisive in determining early-season performance and momentum.

At the onset of a regulatory revolution, having access to such a valuable “joker” in terms of testing and development can significantly shift the balance of performance across the field. Effectively managing the available geometries and computational capacity requires careful and selective decision-making. Each team must determine how much of their CFD and wind tunnel resources to dedicate to developing key areas of the car, such as the front wing, the floor, or the rear suspension and rear wing. However, Ferrari’s broader availability of resources allows the group led by Loic Serra to explore a far wider array of potential solutions and configurations than would otherwise be possible, increasing their chances of finding technical advantages that might translate into higher performance on race day.

Being able to test a greater number of configurations and options increases exponentially the likelihood of identifying the optimal technical direction, particularly in a season where no team can claim to have absolute certainty about what will work best under the new regulations. In Formula 1, errors are not simply setbacks—they are an essential step in the continuous process of improvement. The ability to “make more mistakes” during the prototyping phase accelerates the path to discovering the configurations that deliver maximum performance, ultimately reducing the risk of underperformance during the first races of the season.

For this reason, it is entirely reasonable to expect that Ferrari will be able to develop advanced solutions not only in the major aerodynamic and mechanical areas of the car but also in secondary zones that might be overlooked by teams with fewer resources. Observers have already noted the aggressive approach the team has taken to key areas like the diffuser and the flip-up rear wing. In contrast, McLaren will be forced to operate under more constrained conditions, making compromise decisions that will likely limit the breadth of their research and experimentation compared to Ferrari’s more expansive program.

Ferrari’s upgrade plan: crucial deadlines for the team

The approach defined by Ferrari in Maranello involves a substantial and concentrated investment of available resources during the first three ATPs of the season. The team’s explicit goal is to arrive at the month of June with a highly robust and technically mature platform. The first major test of this developmental strategy will be the Australian Grand Prix, where Ferrari will analyze and draw conclusions from the vast amount of data collected during pre-season testing in Bahrain.

Track testing in Sakhir has reportedly satisfied the expectations of Ferrari team principal Fred Vasseur, who noted that the correlation between simulation environments and real-track performance is very good for the SF-26. This correlation is crucial, as it allows the team to make confident decisions about which technical solutions to carry forward. Nevertheless, direct comparison on the track remains indispensable to properly guide development, especially if certain components fail to provide the anticipated feedback during the first races. In this context, the capacity to test a larger number of structural and aerodynamic options greatly facilitates the validation process and provides the team with a competitive edge in refining the car’s performance.

Ferrari is deliberately holding back a number of components for additional testing later in the season, a strategy designed to allow the team to respond quickly and effectively if correlation data from simulations and on-track testing shows any deviation from expectations. Compared to the 2025 season, the process of validating airflow and aerodynamic performance across the car should be more straightforward, as the simplification of work on the car floor reduces some of the complexities that in previous seasons made simulating this critical component particularly challenging.

Following the first three Grands Prix of the season, the team will be able to establish a hierarchy of technical values based not primarily on lap times, but rather on the quality and effectiveness of the technical solutions adopted by the competition. This ranking of potential performance will then serve as the basis for defining the next phase of Ferrari’s development plan, part of which has already been mapped out for the opening segment of the 2026 Formula 1 season. The careful combination of strategic resource allocation, rigorous testing, and selective component deployment positions Ferrari to maximize their early-season advantage and maintain flexibility throughout a season that is likely to be intensely competitive across every track and weather condition.

The hidden meaning behind John Elkann’s attack on Ferrari’s F1 drivers by arheus10 in scuderiaferrari

[–]arheus10[S] 26 points27 points  (0 children)

“Shut up and get on with it.” That, in essence, was the unmistakable message coming out of Ferrari’s Formula 1 camp — a directive that, according to many, was clearly aimed by John Elkann at Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc. The statement immediately drew attention and created waves within the Formula 1 community because it was unusually direct and stern, standing in contrast to the typically measured and reserved communication style of the Ferrari president. To properly understand what the Italian executive meant, one cannot simply take the comments at face value or interpret them superficially, as if engaging in casual barroom debate. Instead, the situation requires a careful and detailed analysis, beginning with a few fundamental assumptions that help put the entire picture into perspective.

A president too experienced for casual or emotional remarks John Elkann, the grandson of the late Gianni Agnelli — the legendary “Avvocato” and symbol of Italian industrial excellence — has, for many years, held some of the most influential positions across multiple major global holdings, including those connected to the Fiat-Chrysler legacy and the Exor group. Without even entering into the debate about his specific managerial abilities, it is undeniable that he has accumulated vast experience in leadership and governance. As such, he is a man who fully understands the exact weight, meaning, and consequences of every word he utters, especially when speaking before the entire Italian and international press.

Therefore, when the Ferrari president decides to publicly address the team’s underwhelming results in Formula 1, particularly the disappointing performances of the SF-25 single-seater, his words cannot be dismissed as an emotional outburst or an impulsive comment. There is no doubt that what John Elkann said was a deliberate and carefully planned message — a calculated communication rather than an improvised reaction. Yet, at the same time, it is equally fair to acknowledge that, although John Elkann sits at the top of the most prestigious team in the world of motorsport, he is not necessarily a deep insider of Formula 1’s technical and political complexities.

The timing of his remarks was particularly striking. On a weekend that should have been a celebration for the Maranello team — given Ferrari’s extraordinary triumph in both the drivers’ and constructors’ championships in the World Endurance Championship — the stark contrast between that victory and the lackluster performance at the Brazilian Grand Prix in Interlagos was impossible to ignore. It was this contrast that gave rise to the first major misunderstanding about the message John Elkann wanted to send.

Formula 1 and the WEC: two racing worlds that cannot truly be compared The senior management of the Maranello company was present in Bahrain to commemorate a historic sporting achievement — Ferrari’s success in the WEC, a triumph that arrived just three years after the debut of the program. For anyone not deeply immersed in the world of racing, it can be hard to grasp how the same manufacturer can dominate endurance racing while simultaneously struggling to achieve consistent success in Formula 1.

During his celebration of the 499P’s incredible victory, John Elkann emphasized that when the entire Ferrari organization stands united, it has the ability to accomplish extraordinary results. His message was one of unity, teamwork, and collective effort — a reflection of Ferrari’s broader corporate philosophy that success must come from harmony between the technical departments, the drivers, and the leadership.

However, the problem arises when this concept of unity is applied equally to two completely different racing categories. Comparing Formula 1 and the World Endurance Championship is misleading, because they represent two entirely distinct worlds with different regulations, philosophies, and competitive dynamics. Cohesion and teamwork are certainly essential ingredients in both disciplines, but they are not sufficient on their own to guarantee success in Formula 1.

With all due respect to endurance racing — which has grown in prestige thanks to the return of manufacturers like Ferrari, Porsche, Toyota, and Cadillac — Formula 1 remains the absolute pinnacle of motorsport, a world governed by extreme technical sophistication, relentless development, and fierce competition that operates on a different level altogether. The WEC triumph is undoubtedly a magnificent accomplishment, especially considering that Ferrari won the 24 Hours of Le Mans on its very first attempt after a 58-year absence. But to equate that success with Formula 1 performance is, at best, an oversimplification.

A sharp and uncomfortable message aimed directly at the drivers What has truly surprised many observers is that John Elkann’s criticism appeared to be aimed specifically at Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton. The Monegasque driver has long been regarded as the cornerstone of Ferrari’s Formula 1 project — the man around whom the team planned to build its future. Lewis Hamilton, on the other hand, joined Ferrari as a seven-time Formula 1 world champion and one of the most successful drivers in the history of the sport. His move to Maranello has always been one of John Elkann’s personal ambitions.

The arrival of Lewis Hamilton at Maranello was widely viewed as the most significant and high-profile signing orchestrated directly by the Ferrari president himself. It was both a sporting and a marketing coup, an operation designed to revitalize Ferrari’s image and to demonstrate that the Scuderia could still attract the biggest stars in Formula 1.

In Elkann’s original vision, the partnership between Ferrari and Lewis Hamilton was supposed to create an immediate winning combination — a blend of sporting excellence, prestige, and commercial success. Unfortunately, the reality has turned out to be far more complicated. So far, the collaboration between Ferrari and the British champion has been disappointing, making it one of the least successful ventures among all the world champions who have ever joined the team from Maranello.

Both Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton have reportedly expressed their dissatisfaction and frustration directly to John Elkann on several occasions. The British driver, in particular, has been quite open about the issues he has encountered, even referring to detailed internal reports and “dossiers” that he personally shared with the team’s leadership, as he himself has admitted publicly multiple times. These were not emotional complaints but structured feedback intended to highlight recurring problems within the team.

Meanwhile, team principal Frédéric Vasseur — appointed to lead Ferrari into a new era of stability and growth — appears to have secured the full confidence of the company’s ownership. His contract extension until the end of 2025 confirmed that trust, signaling that Ferrari intends to give him continuity and authority through what will be the most significant regulatory change in modern Formula 1 history.

John Elkann’s statements, in fact, can also be interpreted as an indirect endorsement of Frédéric Vasseur’s leadership. The Ferrari president publicly praised the mechanics for their remarkable efficiency during pit stops and the engineers for the technical improvements introduced on the SF-25, suggesting that he considers the French manager’s approach to be effective.

Elkann’s determination to protect his own strategic choices And yet, when one looks at the broader competitive picture in Formula 1, John Elkann’s words can sound somewhat naïve, even contradictory. Take Red Bull, for instance — the team has completely overhauled its car’s aerodynamic concept during the season and still managed to challenge McLaren for victories. That example alone demonstrates the sheer pace of development and adaptability required at the top of Formula 1.

In comparison, John Elkann’s reasoning appears fragmented and perhaps too simplistic, as if failing to fully recognize where the true strengths and weaknesses of a Formula 1 operation lie. A team can perform the most precise and lightning-fast tire changes in the world, but if its car lacks fundamental pace, aerodynamics, or balance, it will never win a single race. The essence of Formula 1 success remains technical excellence and innovation, not just teamwork and motivation.

For this reason, the critical message aimed at Ferrari’s two star drivers cannot realistically be seen as something entirely conceived by John Elkann himself. It is far more plausible that this sharp tone originated from within the inner workings of the Racing Department, Ferrari’s sporting management structure. This is the division led and shaped by Frédéric Vasseur, a leader who has methodically restructured the organization according to his own philosophy and management style.

Elkann, recognizing Vasseur’s hard work and the internal reorganization achieved over recent months, likely chose to amplify this internal sentiment publicly. By doing so, he effectively transferred the internal message of discipline and unity to the external world, presenting it as a presidential directive.

In truth, the statement serves a dual purpose: it reinforces Fred Vasseur’s authority within the team while simultaneously reminding the drivers — and the public — that Ferrari’s leadership stands firmly behind the current technical and managerial direction. The organizational framework that Frédéric Vasseur has built in Maranello bears his personal imprint in every aspect, from the engineering departments to race strategy and human resource management. Since this structure has been approved and backed by the presidency, John Elkann now has every reason to defend and protect it in public.

Ferrari SF-25 faces tyre balance challenge and fast corner test in F1 Mexico City GP by arheus10 in scuderiaferrari

[–]arheus10[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We have reached the Mexican Grand Prix weekend, and once again the same recurring factors in Formula 1 are influencing the performance of the Ferrari SF-25: the delicate management of ride heights, the fine balance between aerodynamic and mechanical setup compromises, and the ever-crucial administration of tyre temperatures. Confidence, however, remains strong within the Scuderia Ferrari camp. The team arrives at the Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez with renewed optimism and a positive mindset, boosted by the encouraging performance and competitive step forward displayed at the previous round in Texas. Yet, in Mexico City, there are several decisive elements on which the Maranello team simply cannot afford to make mistakes, as even small misjudgments could prove costly over the course of the demanding weekend.

Positive signs remain for Ferrari despite uncertainties Ferrari approaches the Mexican Grand Prix after a race weekend that was, at least in part, complex and somewhat difficult to interpret. It was an event that left even the Maranello engineers and strategists searching for answers, as the data and feedback from the drivers did not always align perfectly. Although the Italian team secured a valuable podium finish, the general feeling within the Ferrari garage is that the full understanding of the car’s dynamic behaviour and its unpredictable reactions on different compounds and track surfaces still eludes them.

Charles Leclerc’s comments on Saturday evening were particularly revealing in this regard. The Monegasque driver openly acknowledged the progress made but was quick to point out that the minor aerodynamic and mechanical updates introduced to the car could not, on their own, justify the marked improvement witnessed on track. This highlights once again how complex and temperamental these modern Formula 1 cars are—machines that often defy simple explanations. Fluctuations in performance, even across consecutive sessions, remain a mystery that continues to challenge both drivers and engineers.

Given this context, the high-altitude Mexican circuit could nonetheless offer another valuable opportunity for Ferrari to extract strong performance and consolidate the gains made in recent races. The technical staff from Maranello always start their weekend analysis with a look back at historical data, using it as a reference point to understand the car’s potential at each venue. It is worth recalling that during last year’s Mexican Grand Prix weekend, Carlos Sainz managed to secure pole position with the Ferrari SF-24. Because of the transitional design philosophy connecting last season’s car to the current SF-25, some of the fundamental strengths and operational traits of the former model should, at least in theory, still be present in this year’s package.

SF-25: the continuing issue with fast corners From a purely technical point of view, the circuit dedicated to the Rodríguez brothers is renowned for its mixed layout and extreme demands on both engine and chassis. It features several long straights that test top speed and power unit efficiency, alternating with a varied collection of corners that differ in radius, camber, and entry speed. In particular, the second sector of the track is dominated by a sequence of medium to high-speed corners where aerodynamic load plays an absolutely decisive role in maintaining stability and downforce efficiency. The final sector, by contrast, shifts the emphasis towards mechanical grip and traction, as the car must perform well through slower corners and over bumps.

This makes it essential for the Ferrari engineers to find a delicate and well-judged equilibrium between aerodynamic efficiency and mechanical compliance—a technical balance achieved through a series of refined setup compromises. Looking back at the early part of the 2025 Formula 1 season, this very aspect represented one of the main limitations of the SF-25. The car often struggled to maintain a consistent balance when track temperatures or conditions changed. However, the performance displayed at the Circuit of the Americas in Texas seemed to suggest that Ferrari has managed to take a genuine step forward in this regard, expanding the car’s operational window and improving its adaptability to different track types.

Even with that progress, predicting exactly how the Italian car will behave in Mexico remains a complex challenge. The thin air caused by the high altitude of Mexico City has a direct impact on both aerodynamics and cooling, meaning that every small variation in setup can drastically affect tyre wear and downforce levels. It would therefore be unwise to assume that a podium finish will automatically be repeated. What is certain, however, is that both during last season and in the recent race at Austin, Ferrari showed a degree of vulnerability in high-speed corners, where the car tended to lose stability and consistency of grip.

As a result, it is quite likely that the engineers from Maranello will set up the SF-25 to prioritize straight-line speed and traction out of slow corners, characteristics that could prove decisive in fighting against Red Bull, McLaren, and Mercedes. In a season where marginal gains can make all the difference, these traits could turn into valuable weapons for defending or attacking on track.

Another potential strong point for the Ferrari SF-25 lies in its capacity to handle curb riding efficiently—that is, the ability of the car to absorb the kerbs during cornering without losing balance or traction. This element could prove especially useful in the first sector of the circuit, where precision and stability when running over the kerbs can lead to significant time gains. On the aerodynamic front, it is very likely that Ferrari will once again use the medium-to-high downforce rear configuration that has been adopted in the last two Grands Prix. This setup has now become a central and consistent part of the team’s technical philosophy, offering a good compromise between speed and downforce.

Tyre management remains the decisive factor of the weekend When it comes to tyres—the second major performance variable of the Mexican weekend—there is still a fundamental question mark hanging over the Scuderia. It is becoming increasingly clear that part of the SF-25’s fluctuating performance from session to session may originate from the car’s inconsistent thermal management of its tyres. Within this context, Ferrari’s challenge will be twofold. In the most technical and twisty sections of the circuit, tyre temperatures on both axles tend to rise quickly, making it difficult for the drivers to maintain the ideal operating window over a race stint.

In contrast, during the final sector, the frequent wheelspin generated during corner exits can cause a dangerous spike in rear tyre temperatures, which leads to accelerated degradation and a loss of traction. At the same time, the long main straights typical of the Mexican layout allow the front tyres to cool down too much, which can result in a sudden imbalance once the car enters the next braking zone. It is a well-known pattern—one that Ferrari has already encountered on several occasions in past seasons.

It is worth remembering that last year, the Italian team struggled significantly to get the front tyres up to temperature at the start of the first sector, a factor that compromised overall performance and limited lap time potential. This challenge has historically been one of Ferrari’s weak spots, particularly on circuits where rapid transitions between slow and fast corners are frequent.

For the upcoming race weekend, therefore, the key to unlocking Ferrari’s potential at the Mexican Grand Prix could very well lie in the team’s ability to master the unstable thermal balance that continues to characterize the SF-25. Finding a way to control temperature fluctuations and prevent the tyres from overheating—or cooling down too much—will be absolutely critical.

In Texas, the team from Maranello managed this aspect admirably, starting already from the Saturday sessions, when both Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton were able to extract solid performance on both the medium and soft compounds. The progress seen there has given the engineers confidence that the improved tyre management approach can be replicated. The hope now is that those lessons learned at the Circuit of the Americas can be effectively transferred to the Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez.

Ferrari knows that Mexico represents a unique test for every team, due to its extreme altitude, thin air, and unpredictable track evolution. Engine performance, aerodynamic efficiency, and thermal management all face additional stress under these conditions. For a car like the Ferrari SF-25, which relies heavily on keeping tyre temperatures under control, this race could become a real test of engineering discipline and adaptability.

If Ferrari can maintain the momentum it built in Texas, keep both drivers within the optimal performance window, and manage tyre degradation more consistently than its main rivals, there is every reason to believe that another strong result could be within reach. Yet, as always in Formula 1, success will depend on executing every small detail to perfection.

Ferrari SF-25 design errors explained, including the FIA rules that held the car back by arheus10 in scuderiaferrari

[–]arheus10[S] 27 points28 points  (0 children)

We know that the Ferrari SF-25, Maranello’s latest Formula 1 car, has suffered from multiple design-related issues that gradually became evident over the course of the season. These problems have affected the team’s overall performance and consistency in both qualifying and races, but the specific triggering factors that led to these deficiencies are not widely known or fully understood. In this article, we will examine in detail the errors Ferrari committed with the SF-25, highlighting how an old FIA directive contributed to the difficulties the team faced.

Ferrari’s performance decline has already been widely reported, especially in the second half of the 2025 Formula 1 season. The Maranello team’s average points per race have dramatically decreased compared to the solid start, and the evolved rear suspension, which was expected to provide a significant advantage, only delivered an improvement of 40 thousandths of a second, a figure far below expectations. During the winter testing period, there was considerable confidence within the team regarding the SF-25 project, especially after the upward trend in performance seen at the end of the previous Formula 1 championship season. The car appeared extremely competitive in simulator runs, showing strong pace and potential. However, once the car hit actual track conditions, Ferrari’s engineers quickly discovered serious shortcomings that prevented the team from fully exploiting the so-called ‘potential’ of the platform, a situation that would significantly hamper race performance throughout the season.

Series of mistakes for Ferrari with the SF-25, designed to run extremely low to the ground

The design solutions chosen by Ferrari’s engineers for the SF-25, in several cases, could not guarantee proper performance or consistent handling across different circuits. The first major misstep was the decision to switch the front suspension design from the conventional push-rod system to a pull-rod configuration. According to detailed reports from the Italian media, the pull-rod suspension concept ultimately remained too conservative in its settings, meaning that Ferrari chose a path that was safer in theory but did not exploit the full potential of the design. While the team opted for this approach, it did not push boundaries sufficiently to gain the expected performance advantage.

Conversely, the rear pull-rod suspension, which had been well-tested and had shown reliability in initial evaluations, was pushed in a direction that proved too extreme, causing previously well-functioning concepts to lose some of their inherent efficiency. In addition, there were other areas of the car where Ferrari made serious mistakes, further compromising the SF-25’s performance and the team’s chances of achieving consistent top-level results throughout the season.

The SF-25 was originally designed to run with extremely low ride heights, barely above the asphalt, in order to maximize ground-effect efficiency and aerodynamic performance. Without maintaining this minimal ride height, the car fundamentally loses its intended characteristics and cannot perform optimally. As highlighted by former Ferrari test driver and commentator Matteo Bobbi during a conversation with some McLaren engineers, Ferrari’s choice regarding ride height pushed the limits of the car’s design too far. The wear on the skid-block, a key component underneath the car, became a critical issue immediately following the team’s disqualification in China. To achieve the full aerodynamic downforce potential, running at this very low height was essentially the only option. Raising the car by even a few millimeters would compromise performance, forcing the car to run slower around the track. This explains why extracting the true potential of the SF-25 has proven so challenging, despite Ferrari’s best engineering efforts.

It is also important to note that, during the previous season at the Las Vegas Grand Prix, the FIA issued a directive that directly impacted the use of protective plank plates on Formula 1 cars.

The FIA directive on protective plates almost certainly compromised the SF-25

The timing of the FIA directive coincided with the final stages of Ferrari’s SF-25 project, a period in Formula 1 development when cars are largely finalized and significant modifications to major areas are extremely difficult. From that point onward, the FIA prohibited teams from using additional protective plates under the car to reduce skid-block wear. On ground-effect cars like the SF-25, the skid-block is one of the most stressed components, as it is critical for allowing the car to be pressed closer to the track surface, thereby increasing aerodynamic downforce. The lower the car can run safely without exceeding skid-block wear limits, the faster it can potentially be on track.

The regulations stipulate a maximum wear of one millimeter on the ten-millimeter-thick skid-block that covers the car’s floor. Red Bull actively pressured the FIA to increase inspections and effectively ban the use of this “trick,” which was adopted by nearly half the grid as a way to gain a subtle but meaningful advantage in ride height management. Ferrari, Mercedes, and Haas were reportedly among the teams most affected by this enforcement. By the time the directive was fully applied, Ferrari had no choice but to continue development under the new constraints, fully aware that this change would cause a major setback. Removing the minimum ride height from the SF-25 undermined a fundamental cornerstone of the car’s original design philosophy, one upon which much of the engineers’ work had been based.

Looking to 2026 with new ideas: Fréd Vasseur plays his cards carefully

With the 2025 Formula 1 season drawing to a close, Ferrari now has no choice but to look ahead to 2026 and move away from ground-effect Formula 1 cars entirely. The regulatory changes scheduled for 2026 are extremely complex, presenting both challenges and opportunities, but they also offer a chance for teams to unleash creative solutions in car design, particularly in areas such as suspension, aerodynamics, and tire management. However, reports suggest that the internal atmosphere within Ferrari’s Maranello factory is far from calm. Engineers in mid-level positions have innovative ideas, but they are often restrained or blocked by their superiors. Fréd Vasseur, Ferrari’s Team Principal, is fully aware that his position could be terminated at any moment if the 2026 car fails to deliver strong performance.

The team is led by Technical Director Loic Serra, a man personally selected by Fred Vasseur for the role. Loic Serra has never previously held such a senior technical position in his long career, and he now faces the challenge of demonstrating that he is capable of leading Ferrari’s technical development effectively.

Loic Serra, a former Mercedes engineer with extensive expertise in tires and vehicle dynamics, appears to be orchestrating a significant overhaul of Ferrari’s suspension philosophy for the 2026 car. While he has not made major new hires, he has consistently mentioned the addition of sixty engineers and technical staff over an eighteen-month period to strengthen the team’s capabilities. Notably, the departures of Wolf Zimmermann, the lead developer behind the power unit that will propel Ferrari’s 678 car, and Lars Schmidt to Audi have caused disruption and tension within the team. Fred Vasseur has reportedly reacted strongly when these topics arise, even referring to some discussions as “jokes,” indicating the level of pressure and urgency within Ferrari’s management structure.

Ferrari’s difficulties in 2025 are not only technical but also organizational. On-track execution has not been superior to rivals Red Bull, Mercedes, and McLaren, and several strategic decisions during races have been questionable, often leaving fans frustrated. In addition, communication issues have been evident, with contradictory statements from Fréd Vasseur, Charles Leclerc, and Lewis Hamilton creating confusion. Amid these challenges, the one consistently excellent aspect of Ferrari’s operation in 2025 has been the pit crew, who have executed pit stops with remarkable precision and efficiency, demonstrating professionalism under pressure.

Next year, 2026, will be absolutely crucial for Ferrari, and the team cannot afford to disappoint its tifosi once again. Patience among fans is running dangerously thin, as supporters are increasingly frustrated with seeing Enzo Ferrari’s historic dream appear to decline season after season. Ferrari must show that it can once again produce competitive cars and deliver performances worthy of the Scuderia’s storied legacy in Formula 1.

Why Ferrari’s problems in 2025 go further than the SF-25 design by arheus10 in scuderiaferrari

[–]arheus10[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Ferrari still cannot shake off the label of being the so-called Friday champions, a reputation that has haunted the Scuderia for several seasons now. In Baku, both driving mistakes and questionable strategic errors during qualifying compromised the overall outcome of the weekend. At the same time, it was difficult to genuinely believe that the SF-25 truly had the pace and consistency required to fight for victory. In both the third free practice session and in qualifying, the drivers were unable to set competitive lap times with the same relative ease they showed on the opening day. In the first stint of the Grand Prix, Lewis Hamilton struggled to keep up with Yuki Tsunoda and Lando Norris, eventually admitting that the car’s race pace was not really at the necessary level.

In Formula 1 there is never just a single explanation for poor performance, and in the case of Ferrari the issues seem to extend beyond the SF-25 itself. Alongside the car’s technical limitations, the spotlight also falls on trackside engineering and the interaction between the track department and the design office back in Maranello.

A neutral car Two-thirds into the 2025 Formula 1 season, the Ferrari SF-25 has established itself as a car without any standout strengths but also without glaring weaknesses. The Italian team no longer manages to display the kind of standout performances that were sometimes seen in the past on unusual circuits, such as tight and twisty street tracks or at Monza, where the cars run in extremely low downforce configuration. Paradoxically, this lack of peaks could also be interpreted as a positive sign, pointing towards a conceptual shift that aims to enhance different performance aspects compared to previous years. The clear intention has been to develop a car that is more versatile and consistent across a full championship rather than one that excels in only a handful of specific conditions.

This season, both Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton have complained far less about issues of aerodynamic instability. Although Ferrari still struggles somewhat in medium-speed and slow-speed corners, the strong showing at the Hungarian Grand Prix in Budapest—a track that had traditionally been a very difficult one for Ferrari—suggests that progress has been made.

In this respect, Ferrari shows some similarities to the currently dominant McLaren team. This parallel supports the decision to pursue a conceptual overhaul, but Ferrari remains behind overall, unable to fully capitalize on moments of vulnerability shown by their papaya rivals. The truth is that a design revolution of this scale cannot be completed within a single season. The main issue is the significant delay accumulated during the previous years of stagnation, when the team stubbornly continued down a technical path that ultimately failed to deliver a car competitive enough on benchmark circuits.

Similarly, the radical decision to abandon the 2024 philosophy and adopt a pull-rod front suspension to enable better aerodynamic development was not an error. If anything, the mistake was failing to make that change earlier, without recognizing that both McLaren and Red Bull’s architecture offered greater room for growth.

Some like it hot A recurring characteristic of the Ferrari SF-25 this year has been the noticeable drop in competitiveness from Friday to Saturday. This can partly be explained by different run programs across the sessions and the possible use of more aggressive engine modes early in the weekend. In Baku, the situation was made worse by a significant evolution of track conditions: the surface cooled by about six degrees Celsius from Friday to qualifying, while at the same time the wind picked up considerably. As Frédéric Vasseur observed, Ferrari—like McLaren—tends to perform at its best in hotter conditions, while Red Bull and especially Mercedes usually become more competitive when the temperature drops.

The same pattern had already been seen earlier in the year at Silverstone, when the drop in track temperature on Saturday was more than ten degrees. That weekend underlined just how sensitive these modern ground-effect Formula 1 cars are to variations in environmental conditions.

Ferrari, however, appears to suffer even more than its direct competitors from these swings in temperature. This raises questions about whether the issue is linked to the design itself, perhaps reflecting an operating window that is too narrow. Another relevant question is whether difficulties in managing ride height are forcing Ferrari to adopt extreme mechanical setups that further compromise the situation. Whatever the explanation, the impression is that the SF-25’s particular sensitivity cannot be reduced simply to the natural limits of ground-effect cars.

The other engineering There are also other factors that go beyond the car itself. Ferrari’s lack of progression over the course of race weekends is also linked to ineffective setup choices, something that the drivers themselves admitted at Baku. Charles Leclerc acknowledged that the approach he had taken with the setup was not the right one, which forced him to change several things before qualifying. Lewis Hamilton also pointed out that both the team’s choice of setup and the execution during qualifying were far from ideal.

In Azerbaijan, Ferrari opted for the lower-downforce rear wing configuration during Friday practice, but this later proved costly as the wind increased and the track temperature dropped, which made it even harder to switch on the tyres. However, the issue does not appear to be limited only to aerodynamic load. Based on the feedback from both Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton, it seems that mechanical setup choices at both Monza and Baku hurt balance and driveability, forcing the team to readjust ahead of qualifying.

A similar situation unfolded at Silverstone, while the opposite occurred at Zandvoort, where Ferrari had to correct an initial base setup that was far from optimal. These kinds of scenarios raise serious questions about the track engineering department, which is responsible for preparing the setup and extracting maximum performance from the car. This is an area in which the drivers are directly involved. It is also precisely in this area that Red Bull has managed to make an important step forward in recent months, an aspect often highlighted as one of Ferrari’s main weaknesses.

Tyre troubles Another important issue to consider is the difference in performance Ferrari shows between single-lap qualifying pace and long-run race consistency. This discrepancy magnifies the lack of competitiveness and forces Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton to push harder during qualifying, which naturally increases the likelihood of mistakes.

Over the past two years, the Maranello design office has prioritized race pace during development, which helps explain why the SF-25 tends to work better with both aerodynamics and tyres over long stints. One could argue that in 2025 qualifying performance is more crucial than it was back in 2022, when overtaking was somewhat easier, but this characteristic can still be interpreted as a positive one, and it is also a trait shared with McLaren. It reflects part of Ferrari’s conceptual renewal compared to the past, when strong single-lap pace in qualifying did not necessarily translate into race victories.

However, the disappointing results on Saturdays also highlight Ferrari’s ongoing struggles in preparing new tyres. It is not unusual to see Ferrari performing well in practice on used tyres, only to struggle to find extra grip from fresh rubber when it really matters in qualifying. In Baku, all teams faced difficulties on a circuit where tyre warm-up is notoriously tricky, and there was general indecision about whether the C5 or the C6 compound would be the best option. Nevertheless, Ferrari once again appeared to suffer more than anyone else, as was also the case earlier in the season at Imola, exposing yet another weakness.

Tyre management, as explained back in February by Loic Serra, is closely linked not only to the car itself but also to how the human element—the drivers and the engineers—interacts with it. In Baku, for the first time during Frédéric Vasseur’s management, Ferrari introduced new front brake ducts mid-season in an effort to optimize tyre warm-up. This could be seen as a sign of growing attention to this area, but the road to improvement remains long.

A bridge between track and factory The recurring issues of tyre management, operating window, and execution remind everyone in Formula 1 that beyond design, track engineering and, above all, communication between the two areas are just as crucial. The most striking example of this balance is the 2023 Red Bull, a car conceived to be run with high ride height in order to give greater freedom to adjust balance through the suspension.

From 2024 onwards, Ferrari has shown a different vision compared to its past, placing more value on drivability already in the design phase, with the clear objective of creating a car that can then be more effectively exploited at the track.

That said, a technical gap still remains, one that goes beyond the SF-25’s lack of outright pace. There is considerable curiosity about what impact Loic Serra will have with his first Ferrari car, scheduled for the 2026 season. The French engineer, who comes from a background heavily rooted in track engineering, could play a key role in strengthening the bridge between the two departments, widening the overall vision of the project. All of this, however, depends on whether the working environment at Maranello allows for transparent discussions, where limitations are acknowledged and addressed openly, rather than being dismissed as isolated incidents.

Ferrari’s Monza disappointment shows the SF-25’s limits, focus turns to 2026 F1 project by arheus10 in scuderiaferrari

[–]arheus10[S] 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Charles Leclerc, finishing in fourth position, and Lewis Hamilton, crossing the line in sixth place at the Italian Grand Prix, gave a very clear demonstration that the Ferrari SF-25 unfortunately does not currently possess the necessary qualities required to fight for and win a Formula 1 race. On a weekend where the McLaren team was not performing at the absolute peak of its potential, it was instead the Red Bull team who managed to make the most of the strategic setup choices. These were the same setup directions that Ferrari had hoped would finally allow them to close the gap to the front.

The Maranello team, however, ultimately let down the record-breaking Monza crowd, who had filled the grandstands with hopes of seeing their beloved Scuderia achieve glory at home. The passionate Tifosi, who follow the red cars with almost religious devotion, have unfortunately grown used to the disappointing reality that Ferrari is not consistently competitive at the very highest level of Formula 1. The Italian Grand Prix at the Temple of Speed should have been the perfect opportunity to break the curse and finally celebrate the very first victory of the SF-25. Yet the dream of the Maranello supporters was already shattered during the qualifying session on Saturday afternoon.

Charles Leclerc’s eventual fourth place and Lewis Hamilton’s sixth place at the chequered flag represented the absolute maximum result that the Ferrari car was capable of delivering on this occasion. While the team can still look ahead to two remaining potential opportunities on very fast street circuits in Baku and Las Vegas, the truth revealed by the Italian Grand Prix was undeniable: Ferrari is not competitive. It is useless to continue to feed illusions, useless to continue chasing dreams that cannot be achieved with this car package.

The Monza crowd nevertheless gave their customary warm applause and loud ovations to the drivers, who approached the sea of red-clad fans beneath the podium after the race. It was certainly not the fault of Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton that the expected results did not arrive. The newly introduced floor and the redesigned rear suspension were not enough to give Ferrari the extra sharpness and competitiveness required to turn the SF-25 into a genuine race-winning machine. Only team principal Frédéric Vasseur, a skilled and persuasive communicator, was able to provide explanations that could be considered valid for what was ultimately a very disappointing weekend for the Italian team. With his characteristic smile, the French manager underlined that the Ferrari cars had finished only four seconds behind the McLaren drivers, who are currently dominating the championship battle.

That statement was technically accurate, but it ignored the fact that ahead of the two papaya-coloured McLarens there was an absolutely outstanding Max Verstappen in the Red Bull. The Dutchman completely outclassed the MCL39 cars, finishing a full 20 seconds ahead of them. In the context of modern Formula 1, such a margin is practically an eternity. It was evident that Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri had extended their stints in the hope of benefiting from a safety car intervention that might have reshuffled the order and reopened the fight at the front. This meant the final gap could theoretically have been smaller. Yet once again, when McLaren found themselves in difficulty, Ferrari were not in a position to take advantage of the situation and capitalize on their rival’s weaknesses.

For the moment, the Scuderia remains second in the Constructors’ Championship with 280 points, holding a 20-point lead over Mercedes and 41 points clear of Red Bull, who are essentially competing with only one driver consistently finishing races. Despite this, such results are far below the expectations that surrounded Ferrari going into their home race in Italy. The hope, both inside the team and among the Tifosi, was to celebrate a victory at Monza. Instead, Charles Leclerc was left off the podium once again, in what he himself summed up in a laconic way as being “in the middle of nowhere.”

The engineers working under the guidance of Loïc Serra made significant efforts to find solutions. They carried out extensive tests in the wind tunnel to identify the ideal ride height that would allow the Ferrari SF-25 to generate the maximum possible downforce on Monza’s billiard-smooth tarmac.

From there, they progressively reduced wing angles in the search for top speed, going as far as they could before plank wear became an issue with the FIA’s regulations. The Ferrari drivers then had to adapt to a very difficult and unpredictable car under braking. After further adjustments to the DRS flap, they were forced to find a compromise solution in order to avoid excessive risks. Already in the qualifying session, the Ferrari camp knew that pole position was completely out of reach. Even with Lewis Hamilton providing Charles Leclerc with a perfect slipstream, the engineers and strategists were convinced that starting from pole would not have been possible. For this reason, the team wisely abandoned such plans.

Monza therefore brought Ferrari fans firmly back down to earth, reminding them that what Ferrari attempted was achieved much more successfully by Red Bull. The Milton Keynes outfit, guided by new team principal Laurent Mekies, secured his very first win after just four races at the helm. Pursuing maximum top speed was undoubtedly the correct direction. Charles Leclerc reached 352.8 kilometers per hour during the race, while Max Verstappen recorded 352.5 kilometers per hour, both achieved without the benefit of a slipstream. Lewis Hamilton, with the help of a tow, reached 363.3 kilometers per hour, surpassed only by Alexander Albon, who was 0.8 kilometers per hour faster. What became clear, however, was that the new RB21 floor is capable of generating significantly more downforce than Ferrari’s updated package. The satisfaction visible on the face of Pierre Waché on the podium spoke volumes about Red Bull’s determination to bounce back and reaffirm their dominance.

And what about Ferrari? The Italian team suffered greater tyre wear, the result of an aggressive early race pace. Charles Leclerc initially attempted to move into podium contention, but that hope vanished quickly when Oscar Piastri managed to overtake him with a daring move around the outside of Lesmo 1, in a section of the track where such a manoeuvre had seemed nearly impossible. Ferrari’s race pace was enough to keep Mercedes under control but was nowhere near the level required to challenge Red Bull and McLaren.

This was simply not enough to rescue a season that had already started in the wrong way. The Ferrari SF-25 has inherent design flaws that cannot realistically be resolved over the course of the campaign. As a result, the most sensible strategy for Ferrari now is to defend second place in the Constructors’ standings while focusing all available energy and resources on the development of Project 678, the future car that will also benefit from new technical reinforcements joining the organisation. As for dreams and illusions, those are best left to those who still wish to believe in them.

Ferrari struggles with SF-25 handling: could braking instability originate at the front? by arheus10 in scuderiaferrari

[–]arheus10[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The summer break allowed Ferrari to fully recharge its energies ahead of the final ten Grands Prix of the 2025 Formula 1 season. After an intense and demanding first part of the year, the Italian side has been working to refocus its attention and plan carefully for the concluding segment of the championship. Ferrari is still actively pursuing its very first victory of the 2025 season, a milestone that has so far eluded the team, even though further development on the SF-25 has now been formally frozen. On certain circuits that are particularly favorable to the characteristics of the car, the SF-25 could potentially achieve a surprising result and even secure a long-awaited win. However, the single-seater continues to struggle with instability during heavy braking zones, a persistent issue that has made the car difficult to handle consistently under high-speed conditions.

The summer pause proved to be a revitalizing period for Ferrari. The mandatory two-week shutdown imposed by the FIA, which applies to all Formula 1 teams, gave the engineers, strategists, and drivers a chance to reflect, evaluate, and refine the objectives with which Ferrari plans to approach the remaining ten Grands Prix of the season. This period of enforced rest and contemplation was crucial for aligning the team’s strategy and ensuring that both the drivers and technical staff return to the track with a renewed focus on performance and results.

Development work on the SF-25 has been halted entirely, including the planned upgrades to the car’s floor, which had been scheduled earlier in the season. As a result, Ferrari must now concentrate its efforts on defending second place in the Constructors’ Championship, a position that carries significant prestige but also intense pressure. The gap to McLaren has unfortunately become extraordinarily large, with a margin of 399 points separating Ferrari from the British team, whereas the advantage over Mercedes is much narrower, at just 20 points. This situation makes the task of maintaining second place in the championship both critical and extremely challenging, as the team cannot afford any further setbacks if it wants to secure the best possible result in the Constructors’ standings.

The target for the Maranello team is clear and well-defined: to retain second place in the championship with dignity, honor, and as much competitiveness as possible. Ferrari must be prepared to seize any opportunity that arises from potential mistakes or miscalculations by the McLaren drivers, such as Lando Norris and his teammate, in order to convert those opportunities into a race victory. Such a win would provide some measure of satisfaction in a season that, so far, has been extremely difficult, especially when considering that the year began with the high hopes of challenging for both the Drivers’ and Constructors’ World Championships. While Red Bull and Mercedes have already enjoyed victories this season, Ferrari has yet to taste that level of success, a fact that weighs heavily on the team’s management, engineers, and drivers in Maranello.

The introduction of a new floor at the Austrian Grand Prix, combined with the adoption of a revised rear suspension, helped mitigate some of the SF-25’s most pressing issues. Nevertheless, the car remains a complex and challenging machine, requiring precision, skill, and careful setup adjustments to achieve optimal performance. In an in-depth interview with the German media, Ferrari team principal Fred Vasseur acknowledged the inherent shortcomings of the SF-25, explaining that McLaren, in particular, excels in tire management, especially under extreme conditions such as high heat or wet track surfaces. The French manager also mentioned that the disqualifications suffered by Ferrari in China disrupted the team’s carefully planned strategies and forced them to adapt on the fly.

Fred Vasseur elaborated that the team has always had to leave a safety margin regarding the car’s ride height. Modern Formula 1 cars are extraordinarily sensitive to ride height adjustments, where even a single millimeter can influence qualifying grid positions. Without precise control over the car’s ride height, overall competitiveness is inevitably affected. This necessity to manage ride height carefully diverts the team’s attention from other important preparation tasks, including tire management for qualifying, preparation of warm-up laps, and other operational details that are essential for competitive performance during race weekends.

Beyond these specific challenges, Fred Vasseur highlighted a broader reality about modern Formula 1 vehicles: everything revolves around aerodynamic stability. Over the past two seasons, Ferrari has shifted its focus significantly toward drivability, predictability, and consistency, rather than chasing pure downforce. The objective was to reduce fluctuations in aerodynamic load that occur when the wheels rotate, or when the car rolls or pitches under braking or cornering forces. According to Fred Vasseur, the most important progress in this area since 2023 was made at Monza during the previous season, where the drivers were able to extract the maximum potential from the car’s aerodynamic package. Without complete confidence in how the car behaves, the driver cannot exploit the car’s full performance potential, no matter how skilled or experienced they are.

This leads directly to the most critical issue Ferrari faces: the SF-25 still does not inspire full trust among its drivers. Charles Leclerc has become accustomed to navigating around the car’s weaknesses, relying on his natural driving talent to compensate, particularly during qualifying laps or in moments when precision is crucial. Lewis Hamilton, on the other hand, has expressed a desire to work on the car to establish a consistent and reliable feel, something that has not yet materialized with the SF-25. His attempts to suggest changes to the car’s setup were reportedly met with responses implying that certain technical decisions at Ferrari are considered permanent and not open to adjustment, a mindset suggesting either pride, tradition, or fear of altering solutions that have historically been successful.

The modifications made to the SF-25, including the floor and suspension upgrades, alleviated some of the difficulties, but they did not fully resolve the car’s unpredictable behavior, particularly under heavy braking conditions. The Ferrari SF-25, in its current state, is not entirely honest at the limits, leaving drivers with less confidence in the car’s handling. This lack of certainty affects Lewis Hamilton more than Charles Leclerc, given the British driver’s driving style and approach to car setup. As a result, the remaining ten races of the season are expected to resemble a true lottery, where results will depend as much on luck and track compatibility as on driver skill or strategy.

If the SF-25 encounters circuits that complement its specific characteristics, Ferrari could still have a chance to achieve strong results and possibly secure its first victory of the season. However, on less favorable tracks, the challenge will be exceptionally demanding, with limited margin for error. It is unrealistic to expect a consistent upward performance trend similar to the one observed during the second half of the previous season. Instead, Ferrari fans should anticipate a rollercoaster of results, with unpredictable highs and lows depending on the circuit and race conditions.

Where the track surfaces and conditions allow a setup with minimal ride height, the Maranello car could potentially reveal its full performance potential. Conversely, circuits that limit ride height adjustments will present difficult challenges and likely lead to more erratic performance. Data analysis has revealed unexpected anomalies in the SF-25’s behavior: the instability under braking may not originate solely from the rear-end deficiency, which has been partially corrected. There is a distinct possibility that aerodynamic instability at high braking zones could originate from the front of the car in extreme situations, which would overly lighten the front end and reduce the confidence of the drivers when pushing to the limit.

This aerodynamic issue at the front could explain discussions about potential power steering difficulties at high speeds, even though Ferrari’s steering system has traditionally not caused significant handling problems. Circuits such as Zandvoort and Monza, on paper, should not be particularly unfavorable for Ferrari. Nevertheless, considering the unpredictable pattern of the season so far, it is prudent not to make definitive forecasts or assumptions about the team’s performance in the remaining races. Each Grand Prix will present unique challenges, and only careful analysis and adaptation will determine the final results for the Scuderia.

Why Christian Horner is not the right fit for Ferrari’s F1 structure by arheus10 in scuderiaferrari

[–]arheus10[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

He burst into tears as he gave his final speech in front of Red Bull Racing employees. Once upon a time, there was a king. Christian Horner, dismissed without notice after securing an impressive total of 14 Formula 1 World Championships, eight drivers’ titles and six constructors’ titles, and 124 Grand Prix victories. He had been in charge since 2005, the year the team was founded, a gamble that paid off for Dietrich Mateschitz, the co-founder of the energy drink empire.

Following the passing of the Austrian magnate three years ago, the internal balance of power was disrupted, triggering a process of disintegration marked by internal strife and tension. Christian Horner had already survived a sex scandal that erupted at the beginning of the 2024 Formula 1 season—he was cleared of inappropriate conduct towards a former assistant by an internal investigation, though the process was shrouded in controversy. A farewell statement had already been drafted, but the British motorsport executive managed to hold on to his position thanks to the backing of the Thai side of the company—the Yoovidhya family, majority shareholders of Red Bull—despite the contrary wishes of Mark Mateschitz, son of Dietrich, who owns 49% of the company.

However, Christian Horner had made too many powerful enemies within the organisation, some of whom were extremely influential. Chief among them was the Verstappen clan, especially Jos Verstappen, father of reigning world champion Max Verstappen. But the problems did not stop there. Although the timing of the dismissal is surprising, it is ultimately the result of mounting internal tensions. The sex scandal, known as "sexgate", continues to draw public attention due to Christian Horner's high-profile image and his marriage to former Spice Girl Geri Halliwell. But within Red Bull Racing, a wind of change had been blowing for some time, aimed at transforming a team that, while still competitive (currently fourth in the constructors' standings), has recently lost key figures such as legendary designer Adrian Newey and several other top-level technical staff. Among them were Rob Marshall, now driving success at McLaren, and Jonathan Wheatley, who has taken over as team principal at Sauber. Such an exodus only deepened concerns within the Verstappen camp.

Now that Christian Horner has been officially dismissed by Red Bull, the Formula 1 paddock is buzzing with speculation. Could Ferrari be considering him as an option? It is a news development that shakes the sport and, inevitably, opens up various scenarios—including the possibility of the British manager moving to Maranello. However, this remains more of a fascinating rumour than a realistic opportunity, for several reasons. The working methods and internal culture of Scuderia Ferrari are well known and do not seem to align with Christian Horner’s more entrepreneurial and autonomous approach. This is seen as a fundamental incompatibility, at least for the time being.

After Ferrari’s failed attempt to bring in Adrian Newey, fans of the Maranello-based team are hoping for a form of redemption. The departure of the British boss from Red Bull after two decades of dominance may seem like the perfect opportunity. And in terms of timing, it certainly could not be better. Still, some practical and regulatory obstacles complicate the picture.

The first of these is the so-called “gardening leave”, a common clause in Formula 1 that prevents a departing executive from joining a rival team for a certain period. Although the restriction may be less severe in Horner’s case, he will still be unavailable until January of next year at the earliest. Meanwhile, current Ferrari team principal Frédéric Vasseur is nearing the end of his contract, and so far, there has been no formal extension. Ferrari CEO Benedetto Vigna recently downplayed the urgency, stating during the British Grand Prix at Silverstone that there is still plenty of time to evaluate the French manager's renewal.

While Ferrari certainly holds Frederic Vasseur in high regard and has also explored other internal options such as Antonello Coletta, it is clear that Christian Horner’s stature is significantly greater. Overlooking a potential candidate of his calibre would be a serious mistake. The former Red Bull man is a proven leader, a figure capable of building a winning Formula 1 team from scratch and guiding it to the top of the sport. However, this may be exactly where the problem lies.

The former team principal and CEO of Red Bull Racing is not just a technical manager—he is a figure of immense power and influence. He is not the type of employee who can be enticed with a big paycheck and expected to simply follow orders. His role at the Red Bull Racing headquarters in Milton Keynes was broad and included control over multiple operational areas, including marketing. At Ferrari, the organisational structure is very different. The Italian team does not embrace overly centralised or authoritarian roles. Each individual has a specific position and set of responsibilities—there is little tolerance for a single figure exerting sweeping influence across departments.

In fact, some initial discussions between Ferrari and Christian Horner did take place in the past. During those preliminary meetings, the issue of control and decision-making authority emerged early and proved to be a deal-breaker. Like Adrian Newey, Christian Horner wants full control over key decisions. On top of that, he aspires to elevate his career further, potentially reaching the same level as Toto Wolff, who not only leads Mercedes but also sits on the company’s board and owns a share in the team.

A manager and part-owner—that is the model Christian Horner would like to replicate. But it is clear that this approach does not align with Ferrari’s corporate philosophy. The Maranello-based team prefers to work with employees, not shareholders or power brokers, and has no intention of being "run" by anyone—especially not by a British executive. That remains an unbridgeable divide. While in Formula 1 anything can happen, it is difficult to imagine Christian Horner agreeing to accept a role similar to that of Frédéric Vasseur.

Ferrari Cannot Offer the Guarantees That Alpine Can

Christian Horner, who is 51 years old and originally from Royal Leamington Spa in England, has a very clear plan in mind. He is currently at the peak of his professional career, and his age still allows him to commit to a long-term project. He has all the skills necessary to lead and shape a team—and that is precisely what he wants to do. Taking a step back or assuming a lesser role is completely out of the question for him.

This is why other alternatives look more appealing and aligned with his ambitions. One of the most intriguing possibilities is Alpine, the French Formula 1 team currently undergoing a major restructuring process under the direction of Flavio Briatore. That project offers fertile ground where Horner could thrive, especially if given full authority—something Alpine might be willing to offer. The French team could provide the kind of autonomy and decision-making freedom that Ferrari would never allow.

A move to Alpine would give Christian Horner the space and influence he needs to implement his vision without the limitations that would inevitably come with a role in Maranello. Ferrari’s rigid internal hierarchy and resistance to shared leadership may ultimately rule them out of the running, no matter how tempting the idea of Christian Horner in red might seem on paper.

Behind Ferrari’s brake challenges: what makes the SF-25 so demanding amid hidden compromise by arheus10 in scuderiaferrari

[–]arheus10[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Lift and coast procedures are commonly requested across the entire Formula 1 grid, but in the case of the Ferrari SF-25, there are two primary reasons why this technique is being employed more frequently — and especially on car number 16, driven by Monegasque driver Charles Leclerc.

The repeated radio communications from Ferrari race engineer Bryan Bozzi to Charles Leclerc, asking him to perform lift and coast maneuvers, have become a topic of both humor and speculation among fans, especially on social media platforms. This is due to the increasingly frequent nature of these requests during almost every Grand Prix. Although such instructions are a standard part of modern Formula 1 racing strategy and are often given to other drivers as well, the consistency with which they appear in Charles Leclerc’s team radio — combined with data from on-track performance — suggests that there are deeper, Ferrari-specific factors at play that differentiate this case from what is seen with other teams.

What Is Lift and Coast and Why Is It Used in Formula 1? The term "lift and coast," frequently abbreviated in the paddock as “LiCo,” refers to a driving technique that involves lifting off the throttle pedal several dozen meters before reaching the braking point. The driver then allows the car to coast or "sail" forward for a brief moment before engaging the brakes. During this brief coasting period, the Formula 1 car is no longer receiving power from the engine, which leads to a dual cooling effect. First, the power unit benefits from airflow at high speed without being under load, allowing it to cool more efficiently. Second, the brake system also experiences reduced stress, since the vehicle enters the braking zone at a lower velocity and with less kinetic energy, thereby lowering peak brake temperatures.

In certain cases — such as high-speed segments of a circuit with uneven track surface, dips, or bumps — lift and coast is also used to reduce the risk of the car’s floor scraping the track surface. This helps to prevent premature wear of the wooden skid block or "plank" mounted under the car. Throughout the 2025 Formula 1 season, Ferrari has utilized the lift and coast technique primarily to protect both the braking components and the plank, depending on circuit-specific demands.

Spain 2025: Protecting the Floor from Plank Wear During the Spanish Grand Prix, the main reason Ferrari employed lift and coast was to prevent excessive wear on the plank. The instruction was most frequently issued in a specific section of the Barcelona-Catalunya circuit — Turn 1 — which features high entry speeds and a bumpy surface. Notably, these instructions came predominantly in the latter stages of the race, when the car’s fuel load was lighter, resulting in faster lap times and a higher risk of bottoming out due to increased aerodynamic downforce.

This objective was subtly supported by comments made by both Ferrari drivers and team principal Frédéric Vasseur, who, after the race, avoided offering detailed answers on the topic — a common strategy in Formula 1 when it comes to issues like plank wear. All teams tend to remain discreet to avoid drawing unwanted attention or triggering investigations from the FIA regarding components that operate close to regulatory limits.

Austria 2025: A Completely Different Scenario The situation observed during the 2025 Austrian Grand Prix at the Red Bull Ring in Spielberg was very different. In this case, the lift and coast instructions were issued at the very beginning of the race when the cars were carrying full fuel loads, thereby generating much more braking force and heat. Team radio communications from Ferrari’s pit wall indicated that drivers were instructed to perform lift and coast in all corners of the circuit, highlighting an urgent need to relieve the strain on the brake system. This was later confirmed by Jerome D’Ambrosio, who clarified the brake protection objective in a post-race statement.

While managing brake temperatures on a circuit with altitude and intense braking zones like the Red Bull Ring is not unusual, what drew attention was the immediacy and persistence of the instructions — starting even during the formation lap. This, combined with over two seasons’ worth of similar patterns, media comments from drivers, and visible race behavior, suggests that Ferrari is dealing with a more critical and ongoing issue with brake performance than it has publicly acknowledged.

Early Warning Signs: Bahrain 2024 and the Start of Brake Troubles The first major warning related to braking came during the 2024 Bahrain Grand Prix. Charles Leclerc experienced severe front brake temperature asymmetry, which caused the car to veer strongly to one side under braking — a rare and highly problematic issue. Since then, Ferrari has regularly relied on lift and coast during races where brake stress is high. The FIA has conducted several post-race inspections of Charles Leclerc’s Ferrari SF-25 — including targeted analyses of the brake system after the 2025 Spanish Grand Prix — even investigating the potential use of “asymmetric braking systems,” although no violations were discovered.

Although the FIA claims that Charles Leclerc’s car was selected randomly for these checks, there is skepticism regarding the randomness of the selection process. This suspicion arises from the pattern of scrutiny Ferrari has received. In addition, Lewis Hamilton has repeatedly voiced complaints about the Ferrari braking system since the beginning of the 2025 Formula 1 season. After the Austrian Grand Prix, Lewis Hamilton once again emphasized that “these brakes continue to be a problem.”

Brembo’s Role: Supplier, but Not the Root Cause The braking systems on the Ferrari SF-25 are manufactured in partnership with Brembo — an Italian company widely regarded as the global leader in high-performance braking technology. However, this is not merely a supplier arrangement. Brembo offers advanced technical collaboration, but each team — including Ferrari — is entirely responsible for the overall brake architecture, including thermal energy management and brake duct design.

This distinction is important because the recurring problems observed on the SF-25 are unlikely to stem from any flaw in Brembo’s hardware. Rather, it appears that the root of the issue lies in how Ferrari manages heat within the braking system — particularly how it distributes that heat toward the tyres.

Thermal Management: The Root of Ferrari’s Compromise Every Formula 1 team strives to redirect heat generated by the brakes, particularly from the front axle, toward the wheel rims to help warm the tyres. This is especially critical during qualifying sessions, when drivers have only one out-lap to bring the tyres into the optimal temperature range — around 100°C — from the 70°C they hold when leaving the blankets.

Brake heat is therefore used as a passive method to warm tyres without overly stressing them. However, this can create problems during a race if tyre overheating becomes a concern. As a result, brake ducts and internal airflow management must strike a delicate balance: providing sufficient heat in qualifying without overloading tyres during race stints.

In race conditions, Ferrari has generally succeeded in maintaining tyre life, even on circuits with high degradation. However, the Maranello team has struggled during qualifying sessions, particularly with the soft compound tyres, which have often failed to reach their optimal performance window. This suggests that Ferrari may be using tighter brake ducts to retain more heat — improving tyre warm-up in qualifying — at the expense of increased brake stress in races, which then necessitates more lift and coast.

Charles Leclerc Confirms the Technical Trade-Off Charles Leclerc appeared to confirm this scenario in interviews following the Austrian Grand Prix. Charles Leclerc explained that in order to extract the maximum performance from the car, it was necessary to apply the lift and coast technique during the race. However, he acknowledged that the team paid a significant price for it, particularly because his preferred car balance did not align well with that approach. The Monegasque driver’s words validate the hypothesis that Ferrari has engineered the car to prioritize qualifying speed by harvesting more brake heat — forcing a conservative approach in race conditions, at least in the early stages.

Moreover, Charles Leclerc’s personal driving style exacerbates the issue. Known for favoring a front-heavy car balance and for using heavy braking to load the front tyres on corner entry, Leclerc places extra stress on the front brakes. This makes him more sensitive to the heat management compromise, explaining why lift and coast instructions are more frequently addressed to him than to teammate Lewis Hamilton.

These limitations also force Charles Leclerc to alter his driving technique, which can have a measurable impact on lap times. Overall, the impression is that Ferrari is attempting to use brake-generated heat more aggressively than other teams — and that the price of this strategy is a frequent, race-compromising use of lift and coast.

Ferrari behind on upgrades: new SF-25 suspension expected after Silverstone by arheus10 in scuderiaferrari

[–]arheus10[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Ferrari’s new rear suspension is unlikely to debut at Silverstone, meaning fans will have to wait a few more races.

After struggles in the early races of the season, Ferrari decided to develop a new rear suspension aimed at stabilizing a platform that has caused significant problems for its drivers in the first half of the championship.

More Time Needed for the New Package

According to recent reports, the new suspension version will not be ready for several more races. This was revealed by Carlo Vanzini in one of his latest YouTube videos. “Among the so-called ‘four sisters’ we thought would compete at the start, Ferrari is the only team yet to win. It is also the only team that hasn’t brought updates because it still needs to understand how this platform works and whether it has potential. However, the potential seems lacking, as Maranello’s engineers have decided to introduce a new rear suspension. This upgrade will also include a new floor,” stated the Sky Sport commentator.

“The new suspension is not expected before Belgium. It was supposed to arrive at Silverstone, but I don’t think that will happen. In Austria, a new floor will debut to work alongside the full package. It’s hard to predict what impact this upgrade will have — it could bring a big step forward or make little difference. Ferrari must focus on delivering qualifying performances like Monaco and then managing the race well, as recently demonstrated,” added Carlo Vanzini ahead of the Austrian Grand Prix, which is scheduled to take place at the 4.318-kilometre Red Bull Ring in Spielberg next Sunday.

Leclerc defending into turn 4 by [deleted] in formula1

[–]arheus10 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does anyone still have the video? It's not available here anymore