2024 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team

[bagajohny]

This image mix first stint of Leclerc with second stint of piastri, leave out other stint were not in race simulation...

One of the worst comparison i've ever seen

In any event according to Stell McL is behind RB and Ferrari in Bahrain.

So can we safely say McL is also behind Merc?

[Xyz22]

This image mix first stint of Leclerc with second stint of piastri, leave out other stint were not in race simulation...

One of the worst comparison i've ever seen

In any event according to Stell McL is behind RB and Ferrari in Bahrain.

So can we safely say McL is also behind Merc?

Safely? No. I think MB run a very different program compared to everyone else so is not easy to understand where they are.

[Emag]

The problem is that the cars were never at the same fuel loads at the same time out on track. The run ends earlier for Ferrari, and even earlier for Mercedes (because they were on different programmes).

This is a snippet from the point when laptimes start to get comparable, until the end (before this, we have big fluctuations with teams testing different things) :

Ignore what seem to be some weird timing bug laps for Russell



And if you go by the fact that Oscar finished the run last, with Leclerc finishing it second, and Russell finishing first, applying a fuel delta, Merc actually seems to come out on top when it comes to race pace, with Leclerc right behind them and with McLaren being around 0.4-0.5s further back.

But the thing is, you can never know with what sort of fuel levels they started these runs, how much is the driver being asked to push, what engine modes they are running. Nobody knows really. The good thing is that we only have to wait a week before finding out.

[Xyz22]

The problem is that the cars were never at the same fuel loads at the same time out on track. The run ends earlier for Ferrari, and even earlier for Mercedes (because they were on different programmes).

This is a snippet with from the point laptimes start to get comparable, until the end (before this, we have big fluctuations with teams testing different things) :

https://i.ibb.co/YTFMdRC/image.png

And if you go by the fact that Oscar finished the run last, with Leclerc finishing it second, and Russell finishing first, applying a fuel delta, Merc actually seems to come out on top when it comes to race pace, with Leclerc right behind them and with McLaren being around 0.4-0.5s further back.

But the thing is, you can never know with what sort of fuel levels they started these runs, how much is the driver being asked to push, what engine modes they are running. Nobody knows really. The good thing is that we only have to wait a week before finding out.

Leclerc and Piastri are directly comparable (of course we don't know what McL did in terms of PU maps and overall approach to the race) because they had 100kg of fuel.

We don't know what Russell fuel level was because he always refuelled to simulate the same stint probably (but we don't know which one and if indeed they had 100kg).

[bagajohny]

One of the worst comparison i've ever seen

In any event according to Stell McL is behind RB and Ferrari in Bahrain.

So can we safely say McL is also behind Merc?

Safely? No. I think MB run a very different program compared to everyone else so is not easy to understand where they are.

I said it based on the comments from James Allison that they are slightly ahead of Ferrari in race pace. Slightly ahead or behind doesn't matter, what I take from his statement is that Merc and Ferrari are close in race pace.

[Emag]

The problem is that the cars were never at the same fuel loads at the same time out on track. The run ends earlier for Ferrari, and even earlier for Mercedes (because they were on different programmes).

This is a snippet with from the point laptimes start to get comparable, until the end (before this, we have big fluctuations with teams testing different things) :

https://i.ibb.co/YTFMdRC/image.png

And if you go by the fact that Oscar finished the run last, with Leclerc finishing it second, and Russell finishing first, applying a fuel delta, Merc actually seems to come out on top when it comes to race pace, with Leclerc right behind them and with McLaren being around 0.4-0.5s further back.

But the thing is, you can never know with what sort of fuel levels they started these runs, how much is the driver being asked to push, what engine modes they are running. Nobody knows really. The good thing is that we only have to wait a week before finding out.

Leclerc and Piastri are directly comparable (of course we don't know what McL did in terms of PU maps and overall approach to the race) because they had 100kg of fuel.

We don't know what Russell fuel level was because he always refuelled to simulate the same stint probably (but we don't know which one and if indeed they had 100kg).

The problem with that assumption though, is that if you take it for granted that they are running the stints in synchronization, then at some point Leclerc is running 2s per lap faster than Oscar. If you apply the shift of about 15 laps, the gap becomes more reasonable.

I sincerely doubt that Ferrari gained a net 2s on McLaren over the winter. Not even Haas was 2s off the pace at Abu Dhabi ...

When you take into consideration that McLaren themselves have not stood still over the winter, then you're implying Ferrari gained >=2.5s over their 2023 car. I don't think that's a reasonable number for this ruleset and the relative performance difference of the two cars (both being at the front-end of the field).

That's why I don't think they were running on comparable fuel loads during those stints.

Overall, it's difficult to read, but we can safely say Ferrari is looking better than this time last year. At worst they're looking to be on par with Mercedes and not very far off Max with a new platform which surely has plenty of development potential.

[Xyz22]

The problem is that the cars were never at the same fuel loads at the same time out on track. The run ends earlier for Ferrari, and even earlier for Mercedes (because they were on different programmes).

This is a snippet with from the point laptimes start to get comparable, until the end (before this, we have big fluctuations with teams testing different things) :

https://i.ibb.co/YTFMdRC/image.png

And if you go by the fact that Oscar finished the run last, with Leclerc finishing it second, and Russell finishing first, applying a fuel delta, Merc actually seems to come out on top when it comes to race pace, with Leclerc right behind them and with McLaren being around 0.4-0.5s further back.

But the thing is, you can never know with what sort of fuel levels they started these runs, how much is the driver being asked to push, what engine modes they are running. Nobody knows really. The good thing is that we only have to wait a week before finding out.

Leclerc and Piastri are directly comparable (of course we don't know what McL did in terms of PU maps and overall approach to the race) because they had 100kg of fuel.

We don't know what Russell fuel level was because he always refuelled to simulate the same stint probably (but we don't know which one and if indeed they had 100kg).

The problem with that assumption though, is that if you take it for granted that they are running the stints in synchronization, then at some point Leclerc is running 2s per lap faster than Oscar. If you apply the shift of about 15 laps, the gap becomes more reasonable.

I sincerely doubt that Ferrari gained a net 2s on McLaren over the winter. Not even Haas was 2s off the pace at Abu Dhabi ...

When you take into consideration that McLaren themselves have not stood still over the winter, then you're implying Ferrari gained >=2.5s over their 2023 car. I don't think that's a reasonable number for this ruleset and the relative performance difference of the two cars (both being at the front-end of the field).

That's why I don't think they were running on comparable fuel loads during those stints.

Overall, it's difficult to read, but we can safely say Ferrari is looking better than this time last year. At worst they're looking to be on par with Mercedes and not very far off Max with a new platform which surely has plenty of development potential.

There is no need to do this. Piastri did 3 different stints and so did Charles, so you can compare stint 1 with stint 1 and so on.
Knowing that they never refuelled for all the stints you can "revere engineering" that they started with race fuel.

[Cs98]

Leclerc estimated pace by stint vs previous Bahrain races.
2024: 37,9 (c3), 36,4 (c1), 35,0 (c2)
2023: 38,9 (c3), 38,3 (c1), 37,4 (c1)
2022: 38,9 (c3), 38,1 (c3), 36,9 (c2)

[Xyz22]

Leclerc estimated pace by stint vs previous Bahrain races.
2024: 37,9 (c3), 36,4 (c1), 35,0 (c2)
2023: 38,9 (c3), 38,3 (c1), 37,4 (c1)
2022: 38,9 (c3), 38,1 (c3), 36,9 (c2)

Two things:

- Great performance on hard compound is usually a sign of great aero load and balance
- Lot of improvements when the car has less fuel is again another sign of a well-balanced car

In fact these were the two main issues of the SF 23 outside some outliers.

[Emag]

Leclerc and Piastri are directly comparable (of course we don't know what McL did in terms of PU maps and overall approach to the race) because they had 100kg of fuel.

We don't know what Russell fuel level was because he always refuelled to simulate the same stint probably (but we don't know which one and if indeed they had 100kg).

The problem with that assumption though, is that if you take it for granted that they are running the stints in synchronization, then at some point Leclerc is running 2s per lap faster than Oscar. If you apply the shift of about 15 laps, the gap becomes more reasonable.

I sincerely doubt that Ferrari gained a net 2s on McLaren over the winter. Not even Haas was 2s off the pace at Abu Dhabi ...

When you take into consideration that McLaren themselves have not stood still over the winter, then you're implying Ferrari gained >=2.5s over their 2023 car. I don't think that's a reasonable number for this ruleset and the relative performance difference of the two cars (both being at the front-end of the field).

That's why I don't think they were running on comparable fuel loads during those stints.

Overall, it's difficult to read, but we can safely say Ferrari is looking better than this time last year. At worst they're looking to be on par with Mercedes and not very far off Max with a new platform which surely has plenty of development potential.

There is no need to do this. Piastri did 3 different stints and so did Charles, so you can compare stint 1 with stint 1 and so on.
Knowing that they never refuelled for all the stints you can "revere engineering" that they started with race fuel.

I think there is a missunderstanding going on. All I am trying to tell you is that the stints were not running at the same time on track. Leclerc started his earlier while Oscar was still doing push-cool-push laps :



When Oscar started his first stint, Leclerc was already towards the end of his. Not at any point during the track yesterday were they running at exactly the same fuel levels.

If you take the laptimes that they were running simultaneously at the same time, you will get unreasonable gaps, because Leclerc was already one stint ahead. If you push Oscar's chart back by 15 or so laps, it becomes more reasonable and this is what I am trying to say.

[Xyz22]

The problem with that assumption though, is that if you take it for granted that they are running the stints in synchronization, then at some point Leclerc is running 2s per lap faster than Oscar. If you apply the shift of about 15 laps, the gap becomes more reasonable.

I sincerely doubt that Ferrari gained a net 2s on McLaren over the winter. Not even Haas was 2s off the pace at Abu Dhabi ...

When you take into consideration that McLaren themselves have not stood still over the winter, then you're implying Ferrari gained >=2.5s over their 2023 car. I don't think that's a reasonable number for this ruleset and the relative performance difference of the two cars (both being at the front-end of the field).

That's why I don't think they were running on comparable fuel loads during those stints.

Overall, it's difficult to read, but we can safely say Ferrari is looking better than this time last year. At worst they're looking to be on par with Mercedes and not very far off Max with a new platform which surely has plenty of development potential.

There is no need to do this. Piastri did 3 different stints and so did Charles, so you can compare stint 1 with stint 1 and so on.
Knowing that they never refuelled for all the stints you can "revere engineering" that they started with race fuel.

I think there is a missunderstanding going on. All I am trying to tell you is that the stints were not running at the same time on track. Leclerc started his earlier while Oscar was still doing push-cool-push laps :

https://i.ibb.co/L0rbjrg/image.png

When Oscar started his first stint, Leclerc was already towards the end of his. Not at any point during the track yesterday were running at exactly the same fuel levels.

If you take the laptimes that they were running simultaneously at the same time, you will get unreasonable gaps, because Leclerc was already one stint ahead. If you push Oscar's chart back by 15 or so laps, it becomes more reasonable and this is what I am trying to say.

Ah, yeah of course

I absolutely agree.

[CouncilorIrissa]

The problem is that the cars were never at the same fuel loads at the same time out on track. The run ends earlier for Ferrari, and even earlier for Mercedes (because they were on different programmes).

This is a snippet with from the point laptimes start to get comparable, until the end (before this, we have big fluctuations with teams testing different things) :

https://i.ibb.co/YTFMdRC/image.png

And if you go by the fact that Oscar finished the run last, with Leclerc finishing it second, and Russell finishing first, applying a fuel delta, Merc actually seems to come out on top when it comes to race pace, with Leclerc right behind them and with McLaren being around 0.4-0.5s further back.

But the thing is, you can never know with what sort of fuel levels they started these runs, how much is the driver being asked to push, what engine modes they are running. Nobody knows really. The good thing is that we only have to wait a week before finding out.

Leclerc and Piastri are directly comparable (of course we don't know what McL did in terms of PU maps and overall approach to the race) because they had 100kg of fuel.

We don't know what Russell fuel level was because he always refuelled to simulate the same stint probably (but we don't know which one and if indeed they had 100kg).

The problem with that assumption though, is that if you take it for granted that they are running the stints in synchronization, then at some point Leclerc is running 2s per lap faster than Oscar. If you apply the shift of about 15 laps, the gap becomes more reasonable.

I sincerely doubt that Ferrari gained a net 2s on McLaren over the winter. Not even Haas was 2s off the pace at Abu Dhabi ...

When you take into consideration that McLaren themselves have not stood still over the winter, then you're implying Ferrari gained >=2.5s over their 2023 car. I don't think that's a reasonable number for this ruleset and the relative performance difference of the two cars (both being at the front-end of the field).

That's why I don't think they were running on comparable fuel loads during those stints.

Overall, it's difficult to read, but we can safely say Ferrari is looking better than this time last year. At worst they're looking to be on par with Mercedes and not very far off Max with a new platform which surely has plenty of development potential.

2.5 seconds gained over 2023 car becomes much less outlandish once you take into account what a raging dumpster fire the launch-spec SF23 was in race trim. It was slower than its predecessor by half a second, which coincidentally means that SF24 gained 2 seconds over F1-75, a two year old car that also had worse front tyres.

[Vinlarr89]

Let’s not forget launch spec f1-75 was a great car! TD039 ruined that one.
I think it’s a good turnaround given the fire situation they found themselves in with SF23.

Looking at the covering data, looks really good through medium to high speed corners, needs a bit of work through slower speeds. RB looks to have that slipperiness edge again. Wonder if the packaging will change to try and improve the cars efficiency and top speeds.

[FDD]

Obvuisly we can not draw any certain conclusions where SF24 is compared to the rest of the pack.
Enrico Cardile, confirms that the data acquired on the track so far are consistent with the simulations. Which is vital factor for the further developoment, especialy if we consider the positive sensations of the both drivers with the new car.
So we have to wait for the first race to have more clear picture.

[Sevach]

Obvuisly we can not draw any certain conclusions where SF24 is compared to the rest of the pack.
Enrico Cardile, confirms that the data acquired on the track so far are consistent with the simulations. Which is vital factor for the further developoment, especialy if we consider the positive sensations of the both drivers with the new car.
So we have to wait for the first race to have more clear picture.

As always...
Still most of the "especialized media" is putting their chips on Ferrari to "save the season", this isn't bad.