2025 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team

[dialtone]

No chassis issue apparently: https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-fe ... /10748911/

I really think that the tyre pressures are the culprit, as making the car slide and the compounding issues that has on deg, totally lines up with a car’s performance “falling off a cliff” imho.

This article is quoting corriere, not sure how reliable it has been lately, of course not saying it’s not true.

If they raised tire pressure, and they knew this was plank wear related, what’s the point of checking the chassis and saying that they didn’t find any issue?

None of this makes any sense to me. The article then proceeds to make the same claim of lower engine mode to avoid plank wear despite that mode having been in use since lap 8 and having gone back to full steam on lap 57, which I think is just then speculating.

[dialtone]

I went to find the original source article that Nunez doesn’t link (of course…)

https://www.corriere.it/sport/formula-1 ... _amp.shtml

The subtitle is “wing changes and tire pressure don’t justify 2s per lap” at the end the article says the result of the analysis so far doesn’t exclude plank wear.

The article says the team is looking into potential other external causes like how MCL lost competitiveness in q3 the day before.

Overall this article doesn’t do much for me, if it’s not chassis, and I don’t see how it can be plank wear, then they don’t know how they lost, which is worse.

And as I wrote earlier, how is the team puzzled by this if they presumably inflated those tires at 40psi like my car? Plenty of GPs min tire pressure went up 2-3psi between FP and Race and the cars don’t lose 2s per lap.

[AR3-GP]

This article is quoting corriere, not sure how reliable it has been lately, of course not saying it’s not true.

It's better than twitter.

If they raised tire pressure, and they knew this was plank wear related, what’s the point of checking the chassis and saying that they didn’t find any issue?

It was beyond their understanding. That's why they checked the chassis.

None of this makes any sense to me. The article then proceeds to make the same claim of lower engine mode to avoid plank wear despite that mode having been in use since lap 8 and having gone back to full steam on lap 57, which I think is just then speculating.

They didn't have the same engine mode "since lap 8 and having gone back to full steam on lap 57". I pointed this out along with the full radio transmission on the previous page.



The mode increased after the pitstop on lap 20 which you can see by comparing lap 15 to lap 22:



The mode was reduced again on lap 28 when they could have realized that the tire pressure adjustment at the first stop wasn't enough to reduce the plank wear. You can see that by comparing lap 22 to lap 29:





Why they went back to full power again by lap 57 can be explained by futile attempt to keep Russell behind. Russell passed on lap 61/62. They also could have detected that the car was no longer too low (hence the loss of the slow speed performance). Therefore, they were happy to use normal power again.

[deadhead]

Could just be a freshly acquired problem with the new rear suspension since it hasn’t happened at any other race thus far, at least not to this extent.

[dialtone]

They didn't have the same engine mode "since lap 8 and having gone back to full steam on lap 57". I pointed this out along with the full radio transmission on the previous page.

You can say they didn't but you'd be factually incorrect.



Pretty evident.

[dialtone]

Could just be a freshly acquired problem with the new rear suspension since it hasn’t happened at any other race thus far, at least not to this extent.

That's the point of the chassis problem, they expected it was something new caused by the new suspension.

[AR3-GP]

They didn't have the same engine mode "since lap 8 and having gone back to full steam on lap 57". I pointed this out along with the full radio transmission on the previous page.

You can say they didn't but you'd be factually incorrect.

https://i.imgur.com/BTJOaz1.png

Pretty evident.

What is your point? The power is increased on lap 22. Are the images not displaying properly for you?

The article then proceeds to make the same claim of lower engine mode to avoid plank wear despite that mode having been in use since lap 8 and having gone back to full steam on lap 57, which I think is just then speculating.

Why does the telemetry show a power increase on lap 22 if they have not changed the mode since lap 8? All of the laps between lap 20 and lap 27 are high power modes. Then the power is reduced when Leclerc is told "Mode FS1" on lap 28.

[dialtone]

They didn't have the same engine mode "since lap 8 and having gone back to full steam on lap 57". I pointed this out along with the full radio transmission on the previous page.

You can say they didn't but you'd be factually incorrect.

https://i.imgur.com/BTJOaz1.png

Pretty evident.

What is your point? The power is increased on lap 22. Are the images that I am posting not displaying properly? There is nothing confusing about this information.

I already wrote how this works a few pages ago. This is the last time I'll write because not only it's trivial but every team does it.

High engine mode starts the stints to try and create a gap to the car behind, after a few laps you have to give it up because you run into fuel saving and it's better to prioritize cornering to allow lower fuel usage and better tire wear.

Do they use it also for plank wear? Maybe/probably, but it was in use since Stint 1 and kept Piastri behind, nothing special about turning it on in the other stints, and certainly what Russell said was total nonsense as Ferrari was in high engine mode when he passed, not in low mode as he claimed.

The article then proceeds to make the same claim of lower engine mode to avoid plank wear despite that mode having been in use since lap 8 and having gone back to full steam on lap 57, which I think is just then speculating.

Why does the telemetry show a power increase on lap 22 if they have not changed the mode since lap 8?

That's not what I wrote, I said it was in use since lap 8, which it was, I would have written "continuous use" if they never turned it off, but I already wrote in past pages how they used this mode.

Repeating myself to argue with your "facts" is annoying, so this is the last reply you'll get from me.

[deadhead]

Vassuer’s transition from “we will fight for both championships” to “we are trying to win at least one race” has been very interesting

[deadhead]

[dialtone]

I very much agree with the analysis there, found the same data points as well.

Maybe one day Ferrari will explain what happened, not holding my breath.

[Seanspeed]

This idea of blaming Carlos is honestly some tiny niche thing, not a mainstream opinion. I've seen very, very few people actually pushing this.

And I also think saying Leclerc-Sainz was probably our best pairing in a very long time would be a downright popular opinion among Ferrari fans. Sainz was obviously not amazing and had periods of underperforming that frustrated us, but he was quite frequently a strong point of the team, and also had a nasty habit of having a great weekend specifically in situations where Leclerc was dealing with some unfortunate circumstances which of course annoyed many of Leclerc's more diehard fans.

But I think among just general Ferrari fans, Sainz was pretty well appreciated, and not just in hindsight. Many people did not think Lewis would be some slam-dunk upgrade.

I can only speak about my local Scuderia Ferrari club(which has over 4k members last time I checked) but Sainz was very well liked and the general reaction when it was announced he was leaving was "that sucks", not "Yay!"

That doesn't mean they weren't happy to have Hamilton or that they didn't like Leclerc more, both are true. But I also don't know anyone who legitimately disliked Sainz IRL, that seems like an online only thing. It doesn't reflect the average Tifosi that I know of.

but I'm not European, maybe it's different over there

There was some negativity toward Sainz in 2022, especially after Silverstone because of how the team handled the race. But that isn't Sainz's fault and after the break people just forgot about it. I only see it brought up by Leclerc and Sainz's own fans now.

About the press, I don't agree that the Italian media blindly supports Ferrari or the drivers. At least this season, their coverage has been pretty negative and harsh toward them. Of course every journalist is different, but the fact the Italian motorsport journalist association had to put out a press release asking Italian journalists to stop spreading unfounded rumors about Ferrari says a lot. I have some suspicion it's because Vasseur is less open to the media compared to some past Ferrari TPs, many journalists don't like him and feel that Vasseur is ungrateful for their support.

Yea, there was a bit of hot and cold with Sainz among fans for sure. But at least among fans I've dealt with, most were at the very least on the 'lukewarm' side of things.

And you're right about the Italian media, though I also think they shouldn't be considered proper barometers of anything. Many of them have financial incentive to be inflammatory.

[Seanspeed]

Sainz was good, but I will never appreciate fully a driver that would rather ruin his team mate race, or thatr aces his team mate harder than he races rivals. Sainz just about always prioritized himself over the betterment of the team, and for that reason I’d rather he be on some other team.

I can't think of many cases where a driver would prioritize the team over themselves if a win or podium is on the line. Even Leclerc was upset in Vegas because he felt like the team cost him a podium over Sainz, he wasn't exactly jumping for joy just because the team got good points.

Leclerc and Sainz only crashed once in four years right? That's not bad at all.

I don't have a strong opinion good or bad on Sainz, but a lot of things people blame him for seem to be the team's mismanagement on not Sainz's own fault (for example Silverstone 22.)

There were definitely more than a couple instances where Sainz showed he wasn't a 'Ferrari guy' and it was very frustrating. You can say most drivers are the same, but Sainz seemed to have a particular insecurity in his attempts to beat Leclerc that went beyond reasonable.

But you are right that most drivers are out for themselves first and foremost. I just feel that Sainz was particularly more for himself in some situations than was intelligent or reasonable. Especially when Sainz was often praised for his ability to read a race, he'd seemingly throw all that out the window the second he had an opportunity get ahead of Leclerc, even when it slowed both of them down and hurt the team result.

[deadhead]

Sainz shoud have never gotten a seat at Ferrari to begin with...

He is probably the worst driver to drive for the team in the past two decades or more.

[ScuderiaLeo]

Sainz shoud have never gotten a seat at Ferrari to begin with...

He is probably the worst driver to drive for the team in the past two decades or more.

He might be the "worst" but he's still a good driver.

That says more about the caliber of talent Ferrari has had- extremely high, the best out of all teams over the past few regulation sets. There are no other teams in F1 where you can say they haven't had a single below average driver other than Ferrari.

All that and yet the team has 0 titles to show for it is the real shame...

I disagree that Sainz shouldn't have got the seat. He was the obvious pick in 2020, he was widely considered one of the best midfield drivers and it's not like there were many other options. Who would you have chosen?