2024 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team

[AR3-GP]

It's written by that Formula Data Analysis guy...

Red Bull have 2 squares of top speed and 3 squares of downforce and were given 3 squares of aero efficiency.
Ferrari have 3 squares of top speed but only 2 squares of downforce, but were also given 3 squares of aero efficiency.

Aero efficiency is the ratio of downforce to top speed. So how can 2 squares of top speed and 3 squares of downforce give the same aero efficiency as 3 squares of top speed and 2 squares of downforce? It's logically inconsistent...

Mclaren also exhibited tire management that was just as good as Ferrari (Leclerc and Norris, not Sainz and Piastri). Why only 2 squares for them?

[f1316]

The representation is obviously more facile than the reality , but noticeable that the Ferrari has the most overall squares (by my count 20 vs 17 for McLaren and 16 for Red Bull).

Even if we say that this person’s analysis is entirely accurate, more squares doesn’t necessarily mean better car - for example, it could be that having more downforce is more important for overall lap time than top speed - but it could be a sign that the Ferrari is now the best all-rounder.

I don’t necessarily believe that’s true tbh (or at least, I’ll need to see more proof in the remaining races to believe it) but a heck of an achievement if it turns out to be the case.

[dialtone]

The representation is obviously more facile than the reality , but noticeable that the Ferrari has the most overall squares (by my count 20 vs 17 for McLaren and 16 for Red Bull).

Even if we say that this person’s analysis is entirely accurate, more squares doesn’t necessarily mean better car - for example, it could be that having more downforce is more important for overall lap time than top speed - but it could be a sign that the Ferrari is now the best all-rounder.

I don’t necessarily believe that’s true tbh (or at least, I’ll need to see more proof in the remaining races to believe it) but a heck of an achievement if it turns out to be the case.

Doesn't mean anything at all. Both because of the inconsistencies in the data itself and because the number of squares of a random person's analysis literally doesn't mean anything.

[basti313]

Looks like it's only a relative comparison between 3 cars, so a bit misleading illustration but overall I agree with relative strength conclusions. Downforce is a bit more complex subject, because with these cars it also very much depends on cornering speeds and ride heights, so I'd rather stick with cornering strenghts instead. Also, if there's tyre management, there should also be tyre warmup and this is where RB>McLaren>Ferrari

Hmmm...the issue is, that the chassis is not taken into account. And that plays a major role. I will answer more on this thread where it may belong:
viewtopic.php?t=31534

[FittingMechanics]

Ferrari is put as the best in 5 of 8 categories.
Red Bull in 2 of 8 categories.
McLaren as best in 1 of 8 categories.

Quite interesting. Especially with the narrative that McLaren had fastest car since Miami.

I don't rate these types of analysis very high. It's mostly done for clicks.

[Emag]

Ferrari is put as the best in 5 of 8 categories.
Red Bull in 2 of 8 categories.
McLaren as best in 1 of 8 categories.

Quite interesting. Especially with the narrative that McLaren had fastest car since Miami.

I don't rate these types of analysis very high. It's mostly done for clicks.

Because McLaren hasn't had a dominant car. They have been flattered by their competitors fumbling. As soon as Ferrari fixed their car in Monza, McLaren hasn't looked anywhere near as impressive as before.

What they have going for them, is that they have a wide operating window and while not being the best at all categories, they're good enough at most of them. The only tracks they dominated were tracks which did not suit RedBull and/or Ferrari so they had no competition.

[Espresso]

It's written by that Formula Data Analysis guy...

Red Bull have 2 squares of top speed and 3 squares of downforce and were given 3 squares of aero efficiency.
Ferrari have 3 squares of top speed but only 2 squares of downforce, but were also given 3 squares of aero efficiency.

Aero efficiency is the ratio of downforce to top speed. So how can 2 squares of top speed and 3 squares of downforce give the same aero efficiency as 3 squares of top speed and 2 squares of downforce? It's logically inconsistent...
...

Because you actually can be roughly splitting downforce into 2 sub-elements.
(notwithstanding it´s even a bit more complex....)
A: Downforce created by the chassis
B: Suction created by the floor.
Which indicates Red Bull creates more suction with the floor then Ferrari whilst the chassis perform similar in creating downforce.

[ScuderiaLeo]

The representation is obviously more facile than the reality , but noticeable that the Ferrari has the most overall squares (by my count 20 vs 17 for McLaren and 16 for Red Bull).

Even if we say that this person’s analysis is entirely accurate, more squares doesn’t necessarily mean better car - for example, it could be that having more downforce is more important for overall lap time than top speed - but it could be a sign that the Ferrari is now the best all-rounder.

I don’t necessarily believe that’s true tbh (or at least, I’ll need to see more proof in the remaining races to believe it) but a heck of an achievement if it turns out to be the case.

The SF-24 is a very good all-rounder, but its critical weakness (tire warm-up) is too much to make it truly a balanced car. If you take that away I would agree it's competitive at every type of track—but you can't erase qualifying.

The MCL38 may be "weaker" in certain corners, but it's still a better car because it isn't ridiculously weak in one specific area.

Either way, both cars are incredible improvements from their predecessors.

If the SF-25 can widen the operating window while retaining its positive aspects, it will be hard to beat. But who knows how that development is going. Maranello has been iron tight on leaks this season.

[AR3-GP]

Because McLaren hasn't had a dominant car. They have been flattered by their competitors fumbling.

Let's not talk about others fumbling:

[Emag]

Because McLaren hasn't had a dominant car. They have been flattered by their competitors fumbling.

Let's not talk about others fumbling.

https://i.postimg.cc/QM008C8D/image.png

This is irrelevant?
We were talking about car's technical strengths and weaknesses and the fumbling relates to Ferrari and RedBull hitting troubles during development which took too long to fix. Both cars started the season being comfortably faster than McLaren, so them relegating to being worse than them as the season progressed is absolutely a fumble when it comes to in-season development.

[Vanja #66]

Let's not talk about others fumbling:

This is irrelevant?

Off topic gents, let's keep it about the Maranello team

If the SF-25 can widen the operating window while retaining its positive aspects, it will be hard to beat. But who knows how that development is going. Maranello has been iron tight on leaks this season.

That will be an important improvement and I think it will be especially important to get right with 2025 tyres, they will likely be even harder than 2024 tyres. However, the biggest step might be made by moving the CoG (and thus CoP) to the rear. They seem to have CoG at the front limit right now, by moving it to the rear limit they'd be able to add something like 30-40 points of downforce in the rear when the front downforce remains the same to keep the balance. This alone could be around 5-6 tenths.

Obviously, this depends completely on where their CoG is right now, if it's not not that much forward the gain would be smaller. Additionally, there is still the question of bouncing and how much more floor downforce they can get away with.

[AR3-GP]

Let's not talk about others fumbling:

This is irrelevant?

Off topic gents, let's keep it about the Maranello team

Emag said Ferrari fumbled.

[Emag]

Let's not talk about others fumbling:

This is irrelevant?

Off topic gents, let's keep it about the Maranello team

Emag said Ferrari fumbled.

Because they did? They were the closest RedBull challenger when the season started.

If the Barcelona upgrade was successful they would have walked with both titles. They are already close enough to the WCC even with that horrid stretch of races midseason and with a better car Leclerc would have been a significantly bigger threat to Max than Lando.

[wowgr8]

Half the grid Mercedes powered. A bit scary looking forward to 26, all the data in the world and tons of political pull. Ferrari should have taken Alpine even at a discount, they need customers

[Emag]

Half the grid Mercedes powered. A bit scary looking forward to 26, all the data in the world and tons of political pull. Ferrari should have taken Alpine even at a discount, they need customers

I don’t think that’s a big issue. Ferrari has a really strong power unit department. Actually I would still bet on them having the best engine for the new regs.