2025 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team

[TimW]

Dr.obbs' take on this

thank you for the link.

Just to summarize the conclusion of the tweet (and not to toot my own horn here, but I also wrote this earlier):

So in summary, aero loads with these high downforce coefficient race cars are in fact a major contributing element to the load on the suspensions. And heavy fuel vs. low fuel loads may not be the primary contributing factor. And as fuel burns off the increase in speed now means that the planks actually contact the ground more. Obviously this is track dependent, so plenty of nuances to this as well.

So from lap 57 onwards in the race, LEC at the lowest fuel of the race was reaching the highest speeds in the race at the end of the straight, supposedly to avert plank wear?

Mah...

If they increased tire pressures to avoid plank wear it all makes perfect sense. Top speed is not affected, but cornering speed is.

[Sergej]

From Duchessa and AR... note that this can be considered "preliminary info" since it's published right after the weekend and there hasn't been much time to examine things. They'll probably update it if they learn more specifics over the break.

Ferrari’s approach was to trap the McLarens in dirty air, and early on the plan looked flawless. Leclerc launched cleanly from pole and avoided any wheel-to-wheel battles. Russell even got ahead of Norris, which should have eased Ferrari’s defence, but in reality it opened the door for McLaren to split strategies.

The big question: what happened to Leclerc’s race? With all teams pushing the Venturi cars to the edge on ride heights and pressures, lap 48 marked the turning point. From then on, Leclerc couldn’t better his 1:20.440, while rivals on fresh tyres were a full second quicker. Within 20 laps, Ferrari lost 30 seconds to Piastri, ending any hope of a win.

Ferrari cited an unspecified chassis fault that made the SF-25 increasingly unmanageable. Mid-corner understeer ruined traction and cost Leclerc around 8 km/h on the straights. Tyre pressure strategy may have been a factor, as adjustments to regain lost stiffness backfired. Altering the front wing and pressures is routine, but in this case the car fell completely out of its working window.

Once outside that window, the Ferrari slid everywhere and recovery was impossible. Red Bull had faced similar issues with Verstappen on Friday. Suggestions that Ferrari planned to be strong in the first stint but not the second are baseless. The drop in performance was not intentional.

Technical Director Serra was on-site in Budapest, where the new suspension showed promise in braking and traction. Still, the setup needs more refinement. Ferrari will revisit the simulator in Maranello to address any Budapest missteps.

The car’s inherent limitations, particularly in the mechanical platform’s travel range, remain — after all, the front suspension cannot be altered. The hope is that, after further mileage, the updated SF-25 will be in its prime from the Netherlands onwards. This is especially important with Monza coming up.

bwoah, classic PR management from AR here...."setup still to be refined", "potential to be extracted"....maybe in Abu Dhabi they will be able to extract this mythological potential

also, I don't get the last sentence "after all, the front suspension cannot be altered." front suspension ? they always said that the change in the front suspension has been flawless, why is it becoming a factor now ?

[FDD]

Dr.obbs' take on this

thank you for the link.

Just to summarize the conclusion of the tweet (and not to toot my own horn here, but I also wrote this earlier):

So in summary, aero loads with these high downforce coefficient race cars are in fact a major contributing element to the load on the suspensions. And heavy fuel vs. low fuel loads may not be the primary contributing factor. And as fuel burns off the increase in speed now means that the planks actually contact the ground more. Obviously this is track dependent, so plenty of nuances to this as well.

So from lap 57 onwards in the race, LEC at the lowest fuel of the race was reaching the highest speeds in the race at the end of the straight, supposedly to avert plank wear?

Mah...

If they increased tire pressures to avoid plank wear it all makes perfect sense. Top speed is not affected, but cornering speed is.

Keep in mind that cornering speed in turn 11 (the fastest turn) in the last stint, was higher for LEC compared to himself from the first stint. Also in the last stint top cornering speed in turn 11 was very simmilar compared to OSC.
In high speed corners with higher speed achivning the car shall go even lower which means more plank wear.
LEC was dramatically loosing time in low speed corners.
This is not possible (better top speed in high speed corners) for car which has to manage excessive plank wearing, not at all.

[yooogurt]

If you watch MotoGP, you’ll be familiar with the silly tyre pressure rule. Riders will sometimes deliberately let someone pass just to get their tyre pressure back within the legal window.

The same principle can loosely apply in F1. When you're following another car, you're in dirty air, which means less downforce, and therefore increased tyre slippage. This additional slip leads to increased tyre temperature, and therefore increased tyre pressure. It is why dirty air is so detrimental to performance.

It could very likely be that:

— They did not expect Charles to lead for as long as he did.
— Without another car ahead, he was running in clean air with maximum downforce and reduced tyre slip.
— As a result, his tyres may have never reached the expected running pressure, meaning lower ride height and increased plank grounding, contributing to excessive wear in the first half of the race.

Lewis, on the other hand, spent an extended period in traffic, often with DRS open, which reduces rear wing load and therefore overall downforce. It very likely helped generate tyre temperature more effectively and as a result his pressures were more likely to reach their target, reducing the risk of under-inflation and excessive plank wear. (c) brakeboosted

[SoulPancake13]

If Ferrari had plank issues, then Charles would not be taking high speed corners the way he did even in that 3rd stint. The issues at low speed corners clearly indicate another issue - maybe the tyre pressures increasing put the car totally out of the window there but I guess we will never know.

[TimW]

thank you for the link.

Just to summarize the conclusion of the tweet (and not to toot my own horn here, but I also wrote this earlier):



So from lap 57 onwards in the race, LEC at the lowest fuel of the race was reaching the highest speeds in the race at the end of the straight, supposedly to avert plank wear?

Mah...

If they increased tire pressures to avoid plank wear it all makes perfect sense. Top speed is not affected, but cornering speed is.

Keep in mind that cornering speed in turn 11 (the fastest turn) in the last stint, was higher for LEC compared to himself from the first stint. Also in the last stint top cornering speed in turn 11 was very simmilar compared to OSC.
In high speed corners with higher speed achivning the car shall go even lower which means more plank wear.
LEC was dramatically loosing time in low speed corners.
This is not possible (better top speed in high speed corners) for car which has to manage excessive plank wearing, not at all.

That is not contradictary at all. In low speed corner the mechanical grip loss from the smaller contact patch hurts most.
In the high speed the gain of fuel burn off is more, since you loose weight (which is both contact presure and centripetal force) but not downforce (=contact pressure). This may offset the loss from the tire pressure increase and explain the data from turn 11.

[evered7]

Some 144 laps today. Does the car feature the same components as the race weekend?

If so, more miles on track with the new suspension? Or have they changed the car too much to suit the tires that any learnings are irrelevant?

[ScuderiaLeo]

Some 144 laps today. Does the car feature the same components as the race weekend?

If so, more miles on track with the new suspension? Or have they changed the car too much to suit the tires that any learnings are irrelevant?

AR said "the cars used a low downforce wing, modified setup, and custom components to simulate the 2026 cars."

So even if they didn't change the suspension, it sounds like the car was changed a lot in other ways. Still, hopefully it was helpful in some way for Ferrari too.

[woocasz]

If Ferrari had plank issues, then Charles would not be taking high speed corners the way he did even in that 3rd stint. The issues at low speed corners clearly indicate another issue - maybe the tyre pressures increasing put the car totally out of the window there but I guess we will never know.

The question is, why was the tyre pressure increased?

[AR3-GP]

Once outside that window, the Ferrari slid everywhere and recovery was impossible. Red Bull had faced similar issues with Verstappen on Friday. Suggestions that Ferrari planned to be strong in the first stint but not the second are baseless. The drop in performance was not intentional.

No one thinks it was intentional. It is just showing how small the window is to make the car work and often it's one thing or another (LICO, fuel, ground clearance, tire pressure, etc) which adds up to the fact that they cannot race properly anywhere. When you need the sun and the moon to align to sustain your pace for an entire race distance...this is not the basis for anything good. Like the other teams, this season is a write off.

[AR3-GP]

That is not contradictary at all. In low speed corner the mechanical grip loss from the smaller contact patch hurts most.
In the high speed the gain of fuel burn off is more, since you loose weight (which is both contact presure and centripetal force) but not downforce (=contact pressure). This may offset the loss from the tire pressure increase and explain the data from turn 11.

+1, the slow and medium speed is where the ground clearance is the highest after the tire pressure modification. So you have less speed because less conformity of the rubber to the tarmac in low speed, higher ground clearance killing ground effect more , and going slower which removes the dynamic ride height effect. The high speed would be least impacted as the downforce pushes the floor closer to the ground more at high speeds than low speeds. Ground effect is non-linear as you approach the ground. Increasing tire pressure creates a negative feedback loop. That's why teams want to run at the minimum pressure that Pirelli allows.

[catent]

If Ferrari thought the integrity of the chassis was compromised, they would have retired the car. I think it's unlikely that a car is driveable with broken suspension linkages or broken linkages to the chassis. The forces on the suspension are very high and it would not drive if any link was "broken". Maybe he sustained damaged to the floor from all the bottoming which they were trying to mitigate in the first half of the race. Floor damage can cost 2 seconds of laptime. Leclerc was already reporting something was off after his first pitstop where supposedly they had raised the tire pressures a bit to lift the car.

Vasseur specifically said the team did in fact consider retiring the car.

Below is an analysis by Roberto Chinchero and Piergiuseppe Donadoni, and per their findings, the plank theory is very unlikely to explain all of Leclerc's performance issues.

Perhaps the voices in here insisting, a.) this was exclusively a plank wear issue, and b.) Leclerc was being dishonest to cover for Ferrari, need to eat a heaping of crow and fork over a 'mea culpa'.

Candidly, the theory that Leclerc was always hard for me to believe. Leclerc is a relatively honest and straightforward person and anyone who has followed him and the team for any amount of time would be aware of that. He gives one of three general responses when dealing with questions like this: 1.) He honestly explains what occurred, 2.) He says the team has asked the drivers not to discuss it, or 3.) He says himself/the team are not quite sure what occurred and are doing further analysis.




https://x.com/chappellsistine/status/19 ... 5387032831

[catent]

From Duchessa and AR... note that this can be considered "preliminary info" since it's published right after the weekend and there hasn't been much time to examine things. They'll probably update it if they learn more specifics over the break.

Ferrari’s approach was to trap the McLarens in dirty air, and early on the plan looked flawless. Leclerc launched cleanly from pole and avoided any wheel-to-wheel battles. Russell even got ahead of Norris, which should have eased Ferrari’s defence, but in reality it opened the door for McLaren to split strategies.

The big question: what happened to Leclerc’s race? With all teams pushing the Venturi cars to the edge on ride heights and pressures, lap 48 marked the turning point. From then on, Leclerc couldn’t better his 1:20.440, while rivals on fresh tyres were a full second quicker. Within 20 laps, Ferrari lost 30 seconds to Piastri, ending any hope of a win.

Ferrari cited an unspecified chassis fault that made the SF-25 increasingly unmanageable. Mid-corner understeer ruined traction and cost Leclerc around 8 km/h on the straights. Tyre pressure strategy may have been a factor, as adjustments to regain lost stiffness backfired. Altering the front wing and pressures is routine, but in this case the car fell completely out of its working window.

Once outside that window, the Ferrari slid everywhere and recovery was impossible. Red Bull had faced similar issues with Verstappen on Friday. Suggestions that Ferrari planned to be strong in the first stint but not the second are baseless. The drop in performance was not intentional.

Technical Director Serra was on-site in Budapest, where the new suspension showed promise in braking and traction. Still, the setup needs more refinement. Ferrari will revisit the simulator in Maranello to address any Budapest missteps.

The car’s inherent limitations, particularly in the mechanical platform’s travel range, remain — after all, the front suspension cannot be altered. The hope is that, after further mileage, the updated SF-25 will be in its prime from the Netherlands onwards. This is especially important with Monza coming up.

bwoah, classic PR management from AR here...."setup still to be refined", "potential to be extracted"....maybe in Abu Dhabi they will be able to extract this mythological potential

also, I don't get the last sentence "after all, the front suspension cannot be altered." front suspension ? they always said that the change in the front suspension has been flawless, why is it becoming a factor now ?

Why do fans of others teams show up for no other reason than to throw dirt on individuals sharing information about the Ferrari team?

Can you imagine if I rocked up in a RBR thread talking about the inherent bias of Dutch reporters, claiming their information is bunk, and that they are the team's propaganda arm? It would be a terrible, ugly look, would not be well-received, and I would be entirely out of my lane, commenting on something I am relatively uninformed about.

This is a Ferrari thread, with fans of the team sharing information to discuss. When someone shows up expressly to trash the information being shared, undermine its credibility, make bombastic statements, and add nothing of value to the discussion, that is toxic.

[AR3-GP]

If Ferrari thought the integrity of the chassis was compromised, they would have retired the car. I think it's unlikely that a car is driveable with broken suspension linkages or broken linkages to the chassis. The forces on the suspension are very high and it would not drive if any link was "broken". Maybe he sustained damaged to the floor from all the bottoming which they were trying to mitigate in the first half of the race. Floor damage can cost 2 seconds of laptime. Leclerc was already reporting something was off after his first pitstop where supposedly they had raised the tire pressures a bit to lift the car.

Vasseur specifically said the team did in fact consider retiring the car.

Below is an analysis by Roberto Chinchero and Piergiuseppe Donadoni, and per their findings, the plank theory is very unlikely to explain all (or even some) of Leclerc's performance issues. (Sorry if already posted; did not bother to catch-up on the thread before sharing this).

Perhaps the voices in here insisting, a.) this was exclusively a plank wear issue, and b.) Leclerc was being dishonest to cover for Ferrari, need to eat a heaping of crow and fork over a 'mea culpa'.

I expressed my complete theory before. I think the heart of the issue is the plank and ground clearance. It doesn't explain 2 seconds of performance loss, but it was the kindling. How does the plank wear? The chassis hits the ground. They made tire pressure adjustments after the first stint. There was probably still too much bottoming. This could be how the chassis was "damaged". Then it all fits...

So if they didn't run of the car as low, none of this happens. That's my speculation. Hamilton didn't have the same problems, but his car had no performance and wasn't setup the same. Hamilton being slow in Hungary is suspicious and I don't blame it all on him. It's not logical. I don't think he ever finished outside the top 6 here. His car either has setup problems or something which does not allow the same grip as Leclerc.

[catent]

The higher tire PSI could impact low-speed performance, yes. It is a possibility the team increased tire PSI, and if they did, they likely did so in order to err on the side of caution when it came to plank wear. But it also seems unlikely that the tire PSI increase explains ALL of Leclerc's drop in pace.

This 'either-or' notion that some hold, where this is entirely explained by plank wear, and nothing else, is reductive and unrealistically limiting the scope of this discussion about what may have occurred.

It is absolutely possible - if not highly likely at this point - that Leclerc was dealing with reduced performance due to increased tire PSI (to err on the side of caution re: plank wear), AND experienced a chassis issue that tanked his pace more than just the tire PSI adjustments alone. The fact Vasseur said the team was considering retiring the car basically confirms that this was more than just tire PSI / plank wear concerns.

The fact that the team may have been monitoring/managing plank wear via tire PSI, does not preclude the existence of a chassis issue, and vice-versa.