2025 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team

[PlatinumZealot]

The Ferrari structure is dated and needs to change.

Two heads. One technical principal who calls the shots on race day, like Andrea Stella. And another guy with poltical nous to be the figuread.. Sorta like Zack.

So yes. Ferrari needs a structure similar to McLaren.. No shame about that.

[ScuderiaLeo]

Not looking good at Ferrari, from Autoracer's Livestream

As much as I'd love to hope the second quote is all untrue if it's coming straight from AR it more than likely is real.

And not surprising either, they've said in past livestreams there's problems with engineers getting their ideas heard. It must be reaching a boiling point to be brought up again and so directly..

Did they mention the idea of a UK branch? The idea has been gaining lots of traction in Italian media these weeks.

[catent]

Such strong claims require more specificity, IMO.

Which engineers, specifically, are stifling their subordinate's ideas? Longtime, tenured staff who are entrenched in the culture pre-Vasseur? Or are these people Vasseur is bringing in, contributing to this toxic culture? That's a very critical distinction.

The notion of "big name" engineers being difficult to attract seems hard to square with Serra's and Sanchez' arrival; which "big names" (besides Newey) have they pursued and not landed? Maybe Wache, although reportedly Vasseur is still courting him. Anyone else?

I do acknowledge that where there's some smoke, there may be fire, but I think that reporting is too inspecific to make much of.

[Waz]

Such strong claims require more specificity, IMO.

Which engineers, specifically, are stifling their subordinate's ideas? Longtime, tenured staff who are entrenched in the culture pre-Vasseur? Or are these people Vasseur is bringing in, contributing to this toxic culture? That's a very critical distinction.

The notion of "big name" engineers being difficult to attract seems hard to square with Serra's and Sanchez' arrival; which "big names" (besides Newey) have they pursued and not landed? Maybe Wache, although reportedly Vasseur is still courting him. Anyone else?

I do acknowledge that where there's some smoke, there may be fire, but I think that reporting is too inspecific to make much of.

I read before that the problem at Ferrari is the middle management or department supervisors that have been there a long time. It's their livelihood and they're entrenched in their ways, often with long term relationships with suppliers or sub contractors.

That often leads to a relaxed attitude to projects or deadlines. Risk aversion on new ideas too, because for them it's better to win a couple of races a year with proven concepts or work methods.

Cardile leaving so suddenly and creating a leadership vacuum for several months while the SF-25 was being developed has cast a spotlight on this now and it's getting more public traction.

There needs to be a wholesale rearrangement at Ferrari from technical to manufacturing of the F1 team.

I genuinely don't think the top brass have the appetite for that. It's a risk that may not work out for several years, and Ferrari languishing outside the top 3 for so long would damage the brand nearly permanently.

[MattLightBlue]

Such strong claims require more specificity, IMO.

Which engineers, specifically, are stifling their subordinate's ideas? Longtime, tenured staff who are entrenched in the culture pre-Vasseur? Or are these people Vasseur is bringing in, contributing to this toxic culture? That's a very critical distinction.

The notion of "big name" engineers being difficult to attract seems hard to square with Serra's and Sanchez' arrival; which "big names" (besides Newey) have they pursued and not landed? Maybe Wache, although reportedly Vasseur is still courting him. Anyone else?

I do acknowledge that where there's some smoke, there may be fire, but I think that reporting is too inspecific to make much of.

I read before that the problem at Ferrari is the middle management or department supervisors that have been there a long time. It's their livelihood and they're entrenched in their ways, often with long term relationships with suppliers or sub contractors.

That often leads to a relaxed attitude to projects or deadlines. Risk aversion on new ideas too, because for them it's better to win a couple of races a year with proven concepts or work methods.

Cardile leaving so suddenly and creating a leadership vacuum for several months while the SF-25 was being developed has cast a spotlight on this now and it's getting more public traction.

This

[ScuderiaLeo]

I read before that the problem at Ferrari is the middle management or department supervisors that have been there a long time. It's their livelihood and they're entrenched in their ways, often with long term relationships with suppliers or sub contractors.

That often leads to a relaxed attitude to projects or deadlines. Risk aversion on new ideas too, because for them it's better to win a couple of races a year with proven concepts or work methods.

Cardile leaving so suddenly and creating a leadership vacuum for several months while the SF-25 was being developed has cast a spotlight on this now and it's getting more public traction.

There needs to be a wholesale rearrangement at Ferrari from technical to manufacturing of the F1 team.

I genuinely don't think the top brass have the appetite for that. It's a risk that may not work out for several years, and Ferrari languishing outside the top 3 for so long would damage the brand nearly permanently.

It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

People are so afraid of change that if anyone attempted to make that change, they would end up leaving since they don't trust the team to execute it properly.

By the time this plan came to fruition the drivers and multiple key support staff would leave/retire. This would cause panic in the rest of the team and we'd see a large number of people leave.

I think Ferrari would rather wait until they luck into a championship winning car than meticulously plan for one. Eventually even with mediocre middle management, they'll get a good car eventually because of other teams messing up. The problem is this may not happen for a decade, or more...

[ScuderiaLeo]

Hamilton's dog Roscoe is unfortunately sick and in the animal hospital.

Ham/Lec were supposed to do mule car testing tomorrow in Mugello but it seems like only Leclerc is there, news outlets are now reporting Zhou is taking his place. If that's true I'm guessing Hamilton is in LA with Roscoe. He was in Maranello up until the 23rd.

Leclerc visited the factory today too, there's some phone images posted by the engineers.

[Wouter]

[ScuderiaLeo]

Poor Roscoe. He's pretty old now isn't he? I had a similar breed who died at the age of 12. It might be his time.

Grateful this is happening on a non race week. I hope everything turns out ok, but if not I'm sure the team will give any support possible.

On the topic of the Pirelli test, Leclerc did 26 laps on inters, looks like they were testing something very specific in the bad conditions. Zhou did 70 laps on slicks. I believe this was the final tire test for Ferrari this year, someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

[PlatinumZealot]

Yes. Roscoe will die soon no doubt. Hope Lewis doesn't let it affect his racing too much. We need a podium or even better a win to honor Roscoe!!

[atanatizante]

Some thoughts gathered from the Italian media:

Paradoxically, the fact that Ferrari is not performing well on a certain type of track may be a sign of maturity. Ferrari has chosen to evolve the car towards something more consistent and versatile conceptually. Drivers complain less about aerodynamic instability. The problem is that this path is starting years late. McLaren and Red Bull had already made winning technical choices with pull-road suspension architecture at the front, which is an aggressive aerodynamic philosophy, but with enormous margins for growth.

Ferrari did well to revamp the 2025 project, but it did so late, and one thing is clear: the SF25 performs better in hot weather. At BaKu, the track temperature dropped by approximately 6° between FP2 and qualifying, and the wind increased. The result was that Ferrari, like McLaren, lost competitiveness, while Red Bull and especially Mercedes leaped forward. This had already happened at Silverstone, if you remember, where the temperature dropped by more than 10° on Saturday and the Prancing Horse suffered. This betrays an overly narrow window of use. As soon as you leave the ideal conditions, the car becomes unpredictable.

Ground clearance management will likely force extreme mechanical solutions, and the SF25 will be more vulnerable to environmental changes than a well-balanced ground effect car should be. It is not just a question of aerodynamic philosophy; the setup choices are not paying off. Both Leclerc and Hamilton admitted that they had taken the wrong approach to setup. On Friday, Ferrari opted for a low-downforce rear wing, which proved to be a disadvantage in windier conditions and lower temperatures. Similar situations were also seen at Monza and Silverstone. They start with one setup and then revert back during the race. In contrast, at Zanvoort, they had to correct a base that was too far from optimal, a sign of a Track Engineering department that is struggling to extract the maximum from the package and interpret the evolution of the track.

Red Bull has made a huge step forward in this regard. The ability to translate data and feedback into concrete and quick decisions is one of the reasons for its advantage. The SF25 was therefore created with the idea of improving race pace compared to the past, and on long stints, it is indeed more consistent and gentler on the tires, but this advantage often does not translate into qualifying, where immediate extra grip is needed. Ferrari struggles to get the new tires up to temperature at the right time. Imola and Baku are complicated tracks to interpret, with delicate C5 to C6 compounds. The difference was clear to see, and it is a sign that the problem is being recognized.

New front brake ducts have been introduced this season to manage the tire temperatures better. It's a first step, but there is still a long way to go to catch up with McLaren and Red Bull in this area. In Formula 1, a good design is not enough; you need the ability to make it work on the track. Take Red Bull, for example, when they designed the RB19. They made it run high to allow more freedom in setup. Ferrari has shifted its focus to drivability and stability for 2025, but it still needs to refine the process that translates the data from Maranello into concrete performance on race weekends. This is where Loic Serra, formerly of Mercedes and now head of performance at Ferrari, comes in. 2026 will be the first real test of his vision, and it will be important to combine design and track engineering. Having a car that is easy to set up and predictable in variable conditions will be crucial. To achieve this, however, an internal culture is also needed. It is necessary to recognize limitations without minimizing them, analyze mistakes, and build technical continuity without relying on good, isolated weekends.

In summary, Ferrari is finally seeking consistency and continuity, but is still paying for late decisions and less-than-surgical execution on the track. The SF25 is more balanced and less aggressive than in the past, but cannot react to variables such as weather, track, and tires. If it really wants to get back to winning ways, Maranello needs to speed up this process, reduce environmental sensitivity, strengthen the data bridge between the factory and the circuit, and improve its reading of the race weekend after race weekend. The direction is right, but the gap with McLaren and Red Bull remains evident, and until the weak link between design and setup is bridged, championship-winning Fridays will remain just an illusion.

Which tracks are most favorable for the red cars from now on? As we said before, they perform well on tracks with warmer temperatures, where there is also more grip, where the track is less slippery, and above all, where conditions do not change from Friday to Sunday, as was the case in Baku. Let's take a small step back. What is the most notable difference between the Mercedes W16 and the Ferrari SF25? There is a difference: Mercedes has a more solid and predictable rear end, having returned to more stable rear suspension geometry after we made changes to the rear suspension at Imola, which led to success in Canada, but then they realized their mistake and took a step back. Ferrari, on the other hand, made some changes before the summer break after Belgium that showed positive signs, but then Ferrari missed the right setup window. At Baku, traction was a clear problem, and on the tire front, the two worlds were at odds. The SF25 suffers in cold weather, while Mercedes prefers low temperatures and can also take advantage of them in Las Vegas, which we said is a track that favors Ferrari on paper, but due to the lower temperatures when racing in the evening, it may favor Mercedes. On the contrary, hot, slow tracks like Singapore may be more favorable to Ferrari, provided that the setup is right. So watch out for Ferrari in Singapore, Qatar, and Abu Dhabi, which are the main opportunities because there is more intense heat, there are medium-slow corners, and tire management is favorable. If Ferrari can find stability in its setup and a good race pace, it can earn important points over Mercedes on these tracks. Sprint races can be a bonus, with extra points and less time for rivals to recalibrate their setup. Mexico and Las Vegas remain traps because Mercedes remains the favorite, especially in Las Vegas, but Ferrari can hope for Mercedes tire degradation, which we know suffers in this regard, and balance errors due to high altitudes and thermal management. Austin is neutral territory, and whoever reads the track best will make the difference. In short, Ferrari is not out of the running, but it must be surgical in its analysis of the setup. There is no margin for error in the interpretation this weekend. The SF25 must be perfect, and if it does not make the most of its strengths, which are heat, simulator preparation, sprint traces, and tire management, it could struggle.


One thing sticks out from the above text that I can`t figure out: how can the ground clearance management, which forces them into adopting extreme mechanical solutions, make the car more vulnerable to environmental changes than a well-balanced ground effect car? Could someone enlighten me, please?

[deadhead]

Opportunities for what?

[venkyhere]

Some thoughts gathered from the Italian media:
.....
....
One thing sticks out from the above text that I can`t figure out: how can the ground clearance management, which forces them into adopting extreme mechanical solutions, make the car more vulnerable to environmental changes than a well-balanced ground effect car? Could someone enlighten me, please?

It's a load of BS. F1 related media don't have in depth technical knowledge, they are some journalists who have heard some jargons and other technical sounding words for many years, and with this breadcrumb like info, they draw their own conclusions and churn out 'articles' that are nothing but pure BS (who will question/correct them ? the teams themselves ? no way, they laugh and enjoy the nonsense that gets written in such way). The problem is, some of these journalists hold a huge name/power in the F1 related media space and have their 'captive audience' locked. And that's what gets the hits/clicks for their employers. So this keeps happening.
Unless someone technical from the crew says something to this effect directly to the camera/mic, don't believe any such articles.

[dans79]

One thing sticks out from the above text that I can`t figure out: how can the ground clearance management, which forces them into adopting extreme mechanical solutions, make the car more vulnerable to environmental changes than a well-balanced ground effect car? Could someone enlighten me, please?

Speaking purely hypothetically because no one really knows what they have done. If any team adopts an extreme set-up (suspension, aero, cooling, etc), they can put themselves into a very narrow tire temperature window.

A made up example might be a well balanced car can handle a +-4C track temperature change without loosing performance or needing to alter how the car is being driven (different engine modes, lift and coast, etc). A car with an extreme set-up might only be able to handle +-2C.

[atanatizante]

One thing sticks out from the above text that I can`t figure out: how can the ground clearance management, which forces them into adopting extreme mechanical solutions, make the car more vulnerable to environmental changes than a well-balanced ground effect car? Could someone enlighten me, please?

Speaking purely hypothetically because no one really knows what they have done. If any team adopts an extreme set-up (suspension, aero, cooling, etc), they can put themselves into a very narrow tire temperature window.

A made up example might be a well balanced car can handle a +-4C track temperature change without loosing performance or needing to alter how the car is being driven (different engine modes, lift and coast, etc). A car with an extreme set-up might only be able to handle +-2C.

I thank you, dear Sir, for your plausible explanation. Thanks and all the best to you!