2025 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team

[ScuderiaLeo]

Still doesn't make sense. There isn't a constant amount of turbulent air at the level of being right behind another car. It would have been the same for Charles if Oscar had got ahead and pulled a 5+ second gap.

And I don't believe parc ferme applies to tire pressure, which is set on the grid. Easy enough to adjust for the swing in temperature.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe what they're saying is that the team just made a mistake when choosing tire pressures mid-race. The AR article said Ferrari had low correlation across the weekend so a larger swing in temperature means even more chance for them to make an error (because it's an even further deviation from what they'd planned for.)

[dialtone]

Still doesn't make sense. There isn't a constant amount of turbulent air at the level of being right behind another car. It would have been the same for Charles if Oscar had got ahead and pulled a 5+ second gap.

And I don't believe parc ferme applies to tire pressure, which is set on the grid. Easy enough to adjust for the swing in temperature.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe what they're saying is that the team just made a mistake when choosing tire pressures mid-race. The AR article said Ferrari had low correlation across the weekend so a larger swing in temperature means even more chance for them to make an error (because it's an even further deviation from what they'd planned for.)

Everyone had bad correlation that weekend, not just Ferrari. MCL was 0.5+ ahead of everyone before Q3, then they are back in line. 1.5psi is just not enough to unsettle a car to that degree, there have been races with 2+ psi changes from day to day, just look at post 2021 Baku when Max tire exploded.

Pretty simply they don’t really know the car they are dealing with, more so than others. The window of this car is shockingly small, and when it’s out of window it’s a very steep cliff. When it’s in window it’s close to MCL, even with the plank wear issue. As the article states the chassis and suspension platform isn’t built to work with this aero platform well enough.

[deadhead]

As the article states the chassis and suspension platform isn’t built to work with this aero platform well enough.

been the case since TD039

[Fakepivot]

why does everyone point towards TD039? imo they should have switched to downslope side pod in 2023 starting year itself, imagine if first sf24 was introduced in 2023 they would have more to learn about new concept and maybe could have been stronger this year

[Emag]

why does everyone point towards TD039? imo they should have switched to downslope side pod in 2023 starting year itself, imagine if first sf24 was introduced in 2023 they would have more to learn about new concept and maybe could have been stronger this year

I think 2023 was a massive failure by Ferrari too. As far as I remember, they tried some extreme fix for the 2022 car’s weaknesses and ended up creating something that was draggy, hard to set up and still not kind on the tyres. The SF23, in hindsight, looks like a confused design direction. It's not a clear evolution of the F1-75 and it is also not really a step toward what became the SF24.

A lackluster car which had a narrow operating window and obviously never really offered a strong development path considering it was scrapped. It was only the second year of the new regulations and I guess Ferrari were set on doing things their own way, since back then there was no obvious “superior” solution. Flash forward to 2025 and pretty much all cars have converged sidepod-wise, so there is definitely a correct way of doing things in this regulation cycle and Red Bull managed to crack it right from the start. With hindsight, of course it would have been better for Ferrari to have gone the SF24 route with the SF23. But you have to consider their position at the time. They were taking risks, because they wanted to beat RedBull. Unfortunately, didn't work out.

[Andi76]

I think Ferrari generally has a fundamental problem with the car, which is "built-in." Either the entire suspension and springing are not stiff enough,
or even the chassis (the stiffness of the chassis is unfortunately often not taken into account, but it is extremely important). I personally think Ferrari has a problem with the stiffness of the chassis. This causes the floor to bend down under load, especially when the tank is full, in fast corners or on uneven surfaces. This means more
bottoming down, more sparks and ultimately -->wear on the planks.

Added to this are tire wear (which lowers the rear), thermal effects, and the usual bumps. Then you have a car that scrapes the ground, even if it looked good on paper before the race, and then what happened in Hungary happens, and you generally have to make big compromises everywhere. Whats basically the story of the SF25. The chassis' lack of stiffness explains everything that has happened to Ferrari this year.

[Xyz22]

why does everyone point towards TD039? imo they should have switched to downslope side pod in 2023 starting year itself, imagine if first sf24 was introduced in 2023 they would have more to learn about new concept and maybe could have been stronger this year

I think 2023 was a massive failure by Ferrari too. As far as I remember, they tried some extreme fix for the 2022 car’s weaknesses and ended up creating something that was draggy, hard to set up and still not kind on the tyres. The SF23, in hindsight, looks like a confused design direction. It's not a clear evolution of the F1-75 and it is also not really a step toward what became the SF24.

A lackluster car which had a narrow operating window and obviously never really offered a strong development path considering it was scrapped. It was only the second year of the new regulations and I guess Ferrari were set on doing things their own way, since back then there was no obvious “superior” solution. Flash forward to 2025 and pretty much all cars have converged sidepod-wise, so there is definitely a correct way of doing things in this regulation cycle and Red Bull managed to crack it right from the start. With hindsight, of course it would have been better for Ferrari to have gone the SF24 route with the SF23. But you have to consider their position at the time. They were taking risks, because they wanted to beat RedBull. Unfortunately, didn't work out.

The SF 23 was a colossal disaster. Awful car.

[catent]

why does everyone point towards TD039? imo they should have switched to downslope side pod in 2023 starting year itself, imagine if first sf24 was introduced in 2023 they would have more to learn about new concept and maybe could have been stronger this year

I think 2023 was a massive failure by Ferrari too. As far as I remember, they tried some extreme fix for the 2022 car’s weaknesses and ended up creating something that was draggy, hard to set up and still not kind on the tyres. The SF23, in hindsight, looks like a confused design direction. It's not a clear evolution of the F1-75 and it is also not really a step toward what became the SF24.

A lackluster car which had a narrow operating window and obviously never really offered a strong development path considering it was scrapped. It was only the second year of the new regulations and I guess Ferrari were set on doing things their own way, since back then there was no obvious “superior” solution. Flash forward to 2025 and pretty much all cars have converged sidepod-wise, so there is definitely a correct way of doing things in this regulation cycle and Red Bull managed to crack it right from the start. With hindsight, of course it would have been better for Ferrari to have gone the SF24 route with the SF23. But you have to consider their position at the time. They were taking risks, because they wanted to beat RedBull. Unfortunately, didn't work out.

The SF 23 was a colossal disaster. Awful car.

A "colossal disaster" of a car which managed 9 podiums, 1 win, and finished 3rd in the WCC (3 points behind the 2nd place team).

Goes to show that expectations are everything when it comes to forming subjective opinions about the team's success (or lack thereof).

Ferrari's 2023 performance - while perhaps disappointing in the sense they fell short of their goals of competing for a WDC and WCC - did not constitute a "colossal disaster". Yet, we still get such comments, since expectation very much colors perception. Everything is relative, I suppose.

[deadhead]

The SF 23 was a colossal disaster. Awful car.

It will likely end up with more wins (1) and more pole positions and podiums than the SF25

[WardenOfTheNorth]

I think 2023 was a massive failure by Ferrari too. As far as I remember, they tried some extreme fix for the 2022 car’s weaknesses and ended up creating something that was draggy, hard to set up and still not kind on the tyres. The SF23, in hindsight, looks like a confused design direction. It's not a clear evolution of the F1-75 and it is also not really a step toward what became the SF24.

A lackluster car which had a narrow operating window and obviously never really offered a strong development path considering it was scrapped. It was only the second year of the new regulations and I guess Ferrari were set on doing things their own way, since back then there was no obvious “superior” solution. Flash forward to 2025 and pretty much all cars have converged sidepod-wise, so there is definitely a correct way of doing things in this regulation cycle and Red Bull managed to crack it right from the start. With hindsight, of course it would have been better for Ferrari to have gone the SF24 route with the SF23. But you have to consider their position at the time. They were taking risks, because they wanted to beat RedBull. Unfortunately, didn't work out.

The SF 23 was a colossal disaster. Awful car.

A "colossal disaster" of a car which managed 9 podiums, 1 win, and finished 3rd in the WCC (3 points behind the 2nd place team).

Goes to show that expectations are everything when it comes to forming subjective opinions about the team's success (or lack thereof).

Ferrari's 2023 performance - while perhaps disappointing in the sense they fell short of their goals of competing for a WDC and WCC - did not constitute a "colossal disaster". Yet, we still get such comments, since expectation very much colors perception. Everything is relative, I suppose.

Absolutely!! Look at this year, if McLaren hadn’t built such a beast of a car, then we’d probably be talking about the SF25 as a tempestuous diva, but it would likely have won multiple races and be leading the WCC…..

[deadhead]

If you take away the car that has won the championship in the last 18 years Ferrari will have multiple championships!

[AR3-GP]

[WardenOfTheNorth]

If you take away the car that has won the championship in the last 18 years Ferrari will have multiple championships!

My point is that so many people are acting like the SF25 is a midfield car, when it's actually best of rest.

[Fakepivot]

we should go and make adjustment to the word "disaster" in English dictionary as anything less than one two finishes in every race and both wdc and wcc as the new meaning of the word disaster

[deadhead]

100% matter of perspective and most importantly the statements from the team at the beginning of the season, which was we will be fighting for both championships, so coming from that being a distant second (if that) is indeed a complete disaster.

If the goal of this team is to have a few podiums, maybe a win, and finish second in the championship, then this season is an enormous success!

So which is it? Maybe don’t state that your goal is fighting for both championships in the beginning of the season…