2025 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team

[ScuderiaLeo]

Serra wouldn't have had a total impact on the current SF-25. The package coming to Bahrain might be the first big thing he's in charge of with no marks from his predecessors. It'll be interesting to see how major or minor the adjustments are.

Also I don't know if the "2026 regulations" they're referring to is about the engines or something else. And there's no mention of them making huge changes to the regulations, just pushing them back. (Though we do know from AMuS there are other discussions about changes, such as the V10s.) I imagine we'd know the true answer soon, they can't delay confirming or denying this until the summer, that's too late.

[deadhead]

If they keep the regulations for another year or two I see McLaren bagging multiple WDC championships.

[ScuderiaLeo]

If they keep the regulations for another year or two I see McLaren bagging multiple WDC championships.

Probably, but there may be a higher chance of Ferrari being competitive in these regulations than the next.

Between how hard Ferrari is pushing for a different engine and all the rumors about the teams... it doesn't seem like they have much confidence in their own designs.

[Luscion]

Serra wouldn't have had a total impact on the current SF-25. The package coming to Bahrain might be the first big thing he's in charge of with no marks from his predecessors. It'll be interesting to see how major or minor the adjustments are.

Also I don't know if the "2026 regulations" they're referring to is about the engines or something else. And there's no mention of them making huge changes to the regulations, just pushing them back. (Though we do know from AMuS there are other discussions about changes, such as the V10s.) I imagine we'd know the true answer soon, they can't delay confirming or denying this until the summer, that's too late.

Yea i dont think Serra had much influence on most of the SF-25, like autoracter pointed out, the suspension was homologated in july 2024 and his first day at Ferrari was October 1st

[SoulPancake13]

This explains the reports of how Ferrari saw the correct numbers in the wind tunnel then. When ran at the "correct" height, the DF is really good (as we've seen in Australia on Friday and China for the sprint). I'm just disappointed the team seems to have made another issue regarding the suspension not being able to handle the load.

[ringo]

The gearbox would have been designed with a safety factor and tested beyond what would be experienced on the track.
The issue may be the fasteners, or manufacturing defect. If not on the casing, then on the moving suspension parts, or bell crank fixtures.
All of this should be fixable if Ferrari come from the angle of safety and reliability and plead with FIA to change the design.

[SB15]

I asked this question immediately back in November when there were rumors about the SF-25’s suspension:

Who at Ferrari thought going double pull-rod was good idea especially in an era where the floor produces most of the downforce that sucks the car closer to the ground and where the other top 3 teams went Push-Rod in the rear for great reasons?

[dialtone]

I asked this question immediately back in November when there were rumors about the SF-25’s suspension:

Who at Ferrari thought going double pull-rod was good idea especially in an era where the floor produces most of the downforce that sucks the car closer to the ground and where the other top 3 teams went Push-Rod in the rear for great reasons?

Last thing you want is to switch suspension layout on both suspensions in the last year of regs...

We don't know exactly the issue in the suspension right now, so not much to pointing fingers around, at least not yet.

[Farnborough]

The gearbox would have been designed with a safety factor and tested beyond what would be experienced on the track.
The issue may be the fasteners, or manufacturing defect. If not on the casing, then on the moving suspension parts, or bell crank fixtures.
All of this should be fixable if Ferrari come from the angle of safety and reliability and plead with FIA to change the design.

They're effectively separate component as I understand it.

The "control" of gearbox related to exactly that, the box with gears inside it. That USED to be a structural component with casting external deployed as chassis in effect as one unit.
Now though, there's exo-skeleton structure, mounted to rear of PU block, this to accept all structural load, inside of which fits the gearbox true. And that item is discreet from exo in reality. The lifing is on the box of gears in effect, not exo.

They, I think, all do this to avoid risk of gearbox penalty through change after damage to pick up. Unless Ferrari are different in this aspect.
There can be damage in for example a laterally impacted rear wheel, that to shunt the drive shaft assembly to impact the differential that's part of the gearbox with just a hole in the exo to give drive access.

[dialtone]

They're effectively separate component as I understand it.

The "control" of gearbox related to exactly that, the box with gears inside it. That USED to be a structural component with casting external deployed as chassis in effect as one unit.
Now though, there's exo-skeleton structure, mounted to rear of PU block, this to accept all structural load, inside of which fits the gearbox true. And that item is discreet from exo in reality. The lifing is on the box of gears in effect, not exo.

They, I think, all do this to avoid risk of gearbox penalty through change after damage to pick up. Unless Ferrari are different in this aspect.
There can be damage in for example a laterally impacted rear wheel, that to shunt the drive shaft assembly to impact the differential that's part of the gearbox with just a hole in the exo to give drive access.

I'm assuming the engineering team is competent and they designed a suspension that is compliant when they tested it to all the forces that the model says it should withstand.

Given they are all saving weight, they are probably dealing with some unwanted flex in the connection (fasteners that ringo talked about or just the overall anchoring area), if that's the case it's probably fixable by bulking up some areas and paying some weight, which shouldn't be too much of a problem given LEC was underweight so they have ability to bulk up without going overweight.

It could be the issue with the gearbox in Bahrain was due to casing flexing and ruining the internals or leaking some for example.

[Farnborough]

They're effectively separate component as I understand it.

The "control" of gearbox related to exactly that, the box with gears inside it. That USED to be a structural component with casting external deployed as chassis in effect as one unit.
Now though, there's exo-skeleton structure, mounted to rear of PU block, this to accept all structural load, inside of which fits the gearbox true. And that item is discreet from exo in reality. The lifing is on the box of gears in effect, not exo.

They, I think, all do this to avoid risk of gearbox penalty through change after damage to pick up. Unless Ferrari are different in this aspect.
There can be damage in for example a laterally impacted rear wheel, that to shunt the drive shaft assembly to impact the differential that's part of the gearbox with just a hole in the exo to give drive access.

I'm assuming the engineering team is competent and they designed a suspension that is compliant when they tested it to all the forces that the model says it should withstand.

Given they are all saving weight, they are probably dealing with some unwanted flex in the connection (fasteners that ringo talked about or just the overall anchoring area), if that's the case it's probably fixable by bulking up some areas and paying some weight, which shouldn't be too much of a problem given LEC was underweight so they have ability to bulk up without going overweight.

It could be the issue with the gearbox in Bahrain was due to casing flexing and ruining the internals or leaking some for example.

The gearbox is a complete and sealed item effectively remote from the chassis stress in how its mounted inside the external structural chassis casing. Thats unless Ferrari have done that differently.

There's good view of whole gearbox (you could consider this a "cartridge " unit) in both MB & Alpine threads on here. They made clear units to examine oil flow etc. Gives good oversight of design generally used, think there was a motoring journalist did a yt section at Apline factory to show that one. Matt Watson, possibly.

[deadhead]

This explains the reports of how Ferrari saw the correct numbers in the wind tunnel then. When ran at the "correct" height, the DF is really good (as we've seen in Australia on Friday and China for the sprint). I'm just disappointed the team seems to have made another issue regarding the suspension not being able to handle the load.

No way! That would be an enormous miss if they just assumed that their mechanical platform can handle the load.

Nothing learned from Spain 2024?

[catent]

I asked this question immediately back in November when there were rumors about the SF-25’s suspension:

Who at Ferrari thought going double pull-rod was good idea especially in an era where the floor produces most of the downforce that sucks the car closer to the ground and where the other top 3 teams went Push-Rod in the rear for great reasons?

I too am curious about this, but what exactly are the reasons for a push-rod rear suspension? That’s a genuine question because I have no idea (other than speculating about suspension geometry in a very elementary manner).

I’d suspect any inherent limitations of a pull-rod rear suspension, or any clear benefits of a push-rod rear, would be well within the scope of awareness of the technical team, especially by year four of a reg set. But perhaps they did make a major conceptual misstep.

Curious to hear the rationale supporting a push-rod rear, or explaining why pull-rod was a bad idea.

[.Bole]

This explains the reports of how Ferrari saw the correct numbers in the wind tunnel then. When ran at the "correct" height, the DF is really good (as we've seen in Australia on Friday and China for the sprint). I'm just disappointed the team seems to have made another issue regarding the suspension not being able to handle the load.

No way! That would be an enormous miss if they just assumed that their mechanical platform can handle the load.

Nothing learned from Spain 2024?

Crazy to think but yes. Especially since they decided to revise rear due to issues with Spain upgrade.

[Farnborough]

I asked this question immediately back in November when there were rumors about the SF-25’s suspension:

Who at Ferrari thought going double pull-rod was good idea especially in an era where the floor produces most of the downforce that sucks the car closer to the ground and where the other top 3 teams went Push-Rod in the rear for great reasons?

I too am curious about this, but what exactly are the reasons for a push-rod rear suspension? That’s a genuine question because I have no idea (other than speculating about suspension geometry in a very elementary manner).

I’d suspect any inherent limitations of a pull-rod rear suspension, or any clear benefits of a push-rod rear, would be well within the scope of awareness of the technical team, especially by year four of a reg set. But perhaps they did make a major conceptual misstep.

Curious to hear the rationale supporting a push-rod rear, or explaining why pull-rod was a bad idea.

You've hit it exactly right there. Pull or push is simply the method (orientation) of taking the wheel movement into the suspension component acting on it, from one to the other.

Figuratively speaking it could literally ..... the activation rod and all spring /damping effect ... be flipped /inverted to make that change. They simply don't do anything different.

Reality is what the design meets in integration within the chassis space around other necessary components etc.

As example you could produce just as much/much more advance or nuance in two systems both of which are of the same orientation.

Folding the leverage ratio provision into more restricted "topography " will ordinarily involve higher component loading, the need for more control/concise component accuracy to generate the same level of chassis to wheel deployment.

The spring, usually torsion type, and most other component in that control system can be sited more or less wherever needed through transition linkage, only limited by designer and concept originating mindset.

The front it seems to be moving toward acceptance of pull type offering quantifiable gain in placement of active rod within aero plan. The rear is far more difficult to assess, not least because we don't usually get such clear view.