2026 Scuderia Ferrari HP F1 Team

[fourmula1]

It's a shame the team doesn't have people like Horner and Marko: they would have caused quite a stir in the media over the Mercedes illegal engine. And I'm not at all surprised by the "safety" changes, which somehow always benefit other teams more than Ferrari. I recall 2018, when they made changes to tire tread thickness "for safety's sake," and, lo and behold, Mercedes has improved its tire management since then.

Or in 2013 when pirelli changed tire construction because teams, except Ferrari, couldn’t keep them from shredding.

What about FRIC, quali mode, DAS, and 20-21 floor changes. I'm just asking. I'm a Ferrari fan I'm not defending anyone. No conspiracy. Money drives everything. F1 is for profit entertainment do not forget.

The team and car look good. Drivers seem relatively happy. This season is wide open to me and could have multiple arcs. Nothing is set in stone yet.

[LM10]

The Ferrari still has a benefit off the start despite these changes - it was clear from the practice starts they did in testing. Not sure what the big drama is.

The compression ratio is a pain because it is illegal but I also think the FIA stuffed up by telling them it was ok and now there was no time for Mercedes to make a legal engine before start of the season. I think this is an ok-ish compromise - of the FIA’s making - so long as the test they eventually do implement is sufficient to close down the trick.

I think we should all take a breath and calm down a bit though - the car seems decent at worst and I’m sure we’ll win some races at the very least.

I don’t believe that Mercedes revealed all details about their PU and the FIA told it was OK. This does not make sense considering Tombazis’ words.

Also, Ferrari’s goal is not to win some races, but the world title. To achieve that every detail is important. I’m not gonna take a breath and calm down knowing that one of the biggest opponents will have an illegal competitive advantage for half a season.

[Seanspeed]

Ferrari has not solved the issue of turbo spooling, their engine needs a long time as well. They may have a small advantage relative to another manufacturer (hence their reluctance to change it) but it doesn't change the overall safety concern from the perspective of the FIA. Everyone needs time to spool their turbos and adding 5 seconds reduces the overall stall risk significantly. It's inherent to this PU generation.

As for reducing electrical power I disagree with your reasoning. It doesn't matter what the headline output is for the MGU-K, what matters is how much energy it deploys per lap. If your ICE generates 400 kW it should be thought of as 400 kW + 8,5 MJ of MGU-K deployment per lap. Whether that 8,5 MJ can be deployed at a maximum of 350 kW or 200 kW isn't that relevant. It's a bit like arguing over whether eating your dessert quickly or slowly is better, the calories are the same in the end. So no, lowering the peak electrical output wouldn't help Mercedes, it would just force cars to distribute their energy more evenly across the lap.

Again, it neuters an advantage for Ferrari. That's the point.

As for reducing electrical power, it absolutely advantages Mercedes. On each given acceleration zone, Mercedes has an inherent ICE:electric ratio advantage with this compared to what we have now. More of the power will be coming from the ICE than electrical power, relatively. And with reduced electrical power being used in a given acceleration zone, Mercedes will have more overall power to deploy down the whole straight, again - relatively.

Your argument would only hold true if teams would never run out of electrical power on any straight.

[API]

Yes, the McLaren will be strong. And it will have a legal engine, because if it were illegal, it wouldn't be able to start.

[Seanspeed]

We can’t let the competitive interests of one team go before the health and safety of the drivers. We don’t want big crashes at the start stemming from huge speed deltas. That’s something I hope even the most partial posters on here would agree with. It’s also fair that everyone gets a chance to spool their turbo regardless of where they start on the grid.

Ferrari could foresee the problems but they could not foresee that the FIA would be forced to make changes on safety grounds before the season, other manufacturers clearly bet on that. I’m sorry to say it but Fred tried to get cute and got outsmarted by the Totonator.

It seems to me the other teams perfectly well knew about these problems and could 'foresee' this issue too, and took advantage of that to complain right before the season started, making the FIA panic over safety fearmongering from the teams, letting them get away with ignoring the problem on the technical side and neutering the advantage of anybody who actually worked to improve their situation with starts.

EDIT: Also, if FIA do decide to change to reduce electrical power, that will further help Mercedes use their engine advantage, since they'll have proportionally more ICE power than electrical power than currently. Would be a 3rd important win for Mercedes before we've even run a lap.

I cannot believe this really, lets give them the championship already to get over with it.

It's not that bad, but it's still very annoying nonetheless.

[Badger]

Ferrari has not solved the issue of turbo spooling, their engine needs a long time as well. They may have a small advantage relative to another manufacturer (hence their reluctance to change it) but it doesn't change the overall safety concern from the perspective of the FIA. Everyone needs time to spool their turbos and adding 5 seconds reduces the overall stall risk significantly. It's inherent to this PU generation.

As for reducing electrical power I disagree with your reasoning. It doesn't matter what the headline output is for the MGU-K, what matters is how much energy it deploys per lap. If your ICE generates 400 kW it should be thought of as 400 kW + 8,5 MJ of MGU-K deployment per lap. Whether that 8,5 MJ can be deployed at a maximum of 350 kW or 200 kW isn't that relevant. It's a bit like arguing over whether eating your dessert quickly or slowly is better, the calories are the same in the end. So no, lowering the peak electrical output wouldn't help Mercedes, it would just force cars to distribute their energy more evenly across the lap.

Again, it neuters an advantage for Ferrari. That's the point.

As for reducing electrical power, it absolutely advantages Mercedes. On each given acceleration zone, Mercedes has an inherent ICE:electric ratio advantage with this compared to what we have now. More of the power will be coming from the ICE than electrical power, relatively. And with reduced electrical power being used in a given acceleration zone, Mercedes will have more overall power to deploy down the whole straight, again - relatively.

Your argument would only hold true if teams would never run out of electrical power on any straight.

I understand the competitive argument but safety comes first for the FIA.

Nope, your argument would only hold true if teams never run out of electrical energy. Either you deploy the 350 kW for shorter or you deploy the 200 kW for longer, but the total energy deployed doesn't change (because harvesting would remain 350 kW in both scenarios), and thus the relative power will remain the same on average across the lap. If we assume Merc has the best ICE, in the 200 kW scenario they'd have slightly better relative power early on the straight, but slightly worse relative power from the middle to the end of the straight where the 200 kW can deploy for longer (where under the normal 350 kW scenario they would be clipping or super-clipping). On the whole it would even out exactly because the energy available is the same, it's basic physics.

[catent]

Yes, the McLaren will be strong. And it will have a legal engine, because if it were illegal, it wouldn't be able to start.

Now use that same logic vis-a-vis Ferrari's engine in 2019. It, too, repeatedly passed pre-session scrutineering and was deemed legal based on the compliance checks which existed at that point in time.

So, either you believe Ferrari's 2019 engine was perfectly legal, using the same logical process you articulated above.

Or, you believe Ferrari's 2019 engine was not perfectly legal, and therefore also believe compliance checks can be changed/altered by the FIA in order to better enforce the rules/regulations as they are intended.

If one subscribes to the latter interpretation, that would preclude one from deeming Mercedes' engine "legal" based solely on the fact that it apparently passes the existing compliance checks.

[catent]

Ferrari will be the only team to benefit from their exhaust blowing a rear wing. A practice which the *intent* of the rules has been to prevent for many years, but Ferrari have found a loophole. And the FIA changed the rules all the way up to December to permit. Yet here we are.

Conspiracy theories... everywhere!

There are rules regarding the dimensions of bodywork. Ferrari have entirely conformed with existing regulations regarding bodywork dimensions in implementing this exhaust innovation. Full-stop.

There are rules regarding compression ratio in the power units. Those rules clearly and explicitly stipulate that compression ratio is not to exceed 16:1 on any given piston. If Mercedes is doing as they are alleged to, and breaching that 16:1 compression ratio cap while the engine is in operation, then they are not entirely conforming with existing regulations. Full-stop.

The better analogy to this compression ratio situation would be if Ferrari's exhaust solution expanded/grew/changed in size/shape while the car was operating, such that it was compliant during pre-session checks but not when the car was in operation. Of course, that's not what's actually happening.

[Emag]

Yes, the McLaren will be strong. And it will have a legal engine, because if it were illegal, it wouldn't be able to start.

Now use that same logic vis-a-vis Ferrari's engine in 2019. It, too, repeatedly passed pre-session scrutineering and was deemed legal based on the compliance checks which existed at that point in time.

So, either you believe Ferrari's 2019 engine was perfectly legal, using the same logical process you articulated above.

Or, you believe Ferrari's 2019 engine was not perfectly legal, and therefore also believe compliance checks can be changed/altered by the FIA in order to better enforce the rules/regulations as they are intended.

If one subscribes to the latter interpretation, that would preclude one from deeming Mercedes' engine "legal" based solely on the fact that it apparently passes the existing compliance checks.

Ferrari's engine was legal until it wasn't. They got "caught", the FIA did not like it, and they were forced to change it after the fact. That's how FIA operates so I don't understand why people are surprised time and time again. It was the same with the mini DRS and the whole flexi wings saga. If it passes the tests, for all intents and purposes, it is legal. Then it's up to the FIA to decide if they want to allow it or not, by introducing stricter or more indepth tests to take it away. This is how it happened with the mini DRS and how it happened with Ferrari 2019 PU as well.

If you write ambiguous rules/tests then that's on you as a governing body. This is F1. It should be taken for granted that when you write a rule to define how something should behave, the teams will only try to comply with "how it should not behave" to pass the test part of the rule.

[catent]

Yes, the McLaren will be strong. And it will have a legal engine, because if it were illegal, it wouldn't be able to start.

Now use that same logic vis-a-vis Ferrari's engine in 2019. It, too, repeatedly passed pre-session scrutineering and was deemed legal based on the compliance checks which existed at that point in time.

So, either you believe Ferrari's 2019 engine was perfectly legal, using the same logical process you articulated above.

Or, you believe Ferrari's 2019 engine was not perfectly legal, and therefore also believe compliance checks can be changed/altered by the FIA in order to better enforce the rules/regulations as they are intended.

If one subscribes to the latter interpretation, that would preclude one from deeming Mercedes' engine "legal" based solely on the fact that it apparently passes the existing compliance checks.

Ferrari's engine was legal until it wasn't. They got "caught", the FIA did not like it, and they were forced to change it after the fact. That's how FIA operates so I don't understand why people are surprised time and time again. It was the same with the mini DRS and the whole flexi wings saga. If it passes the tests, for all intents and purposes, it is legal. Then it's up to the FIA to decide if they want to allow it or not, by introducing stricter or more indepth tests to take it away. This is how it happened with the mini DRS and how it happened with Ferrari 2019 PU as well.

If you write ambiguous rules/tests then that's on you as a governing body. This is F1. It should be taken for granted that when you write a rule to define how something should behave, the teams will only try to comply with "how it should not behave" part of the rule.

I think that actually gets to the heart of much of the (valid and legitimate, IMO) criticism of the FIA in this thread.

Yes, if one can exploit the measurement, they will, and we cannot blame teams for trying to find a competitive edge. The FIA ultimately writes the rules and has the ability to intervene to tweak them if they wish.

The arbitrariness and inconsistency with which the FIA has acted over the years - both in terms of how quickly they intervene, and to what extent - has advantaged/disadvantaged certain teams more than others.

[venkyhere]

Ferrari has not solved the issue of turbo spooling, their engine needs a long time as well. They may have a small advantage relative to another manufacturer (hence their reluctance to change it) but it doesn't change the overall safety concern from the perspective of the FIA. Everyone needs time to spool their turbos and adding 5 seconds reduces the overall stall risk significantly. It's inherent to this PU generation.

As for reducing electrical power I disagree with your reasoning. It doesn't matter what the headline output is for the MGU-K, what matters is how much energy it deploys per lap. If your ICE generates 400 kW it should be thought of as 400 kW + 8,5 MJ of MGU-K deployment per lap. Whether that 8,5 MJ can be deployed at a maximum of 350 kW or 200 kW isn't that relevant. It's a bit like arguing over whether eating your dessert quickly or slowly is better, the calories are the same in the end. So no, lowering the peak electrical output wouldn't help Mercedes, it would just force cars to distribute their energy more evenly across the lap.

Again, it neuters an advantage for Ferrari. That's the point.

As for reducing electrical power, it absolutely advantages Mercedes. On each given acceleration zone, Mercedes has an inherent ICE:electric ratio advantage with this compared to what we have now. More of the power will be coming from the ICE than electrical power, relatively. And with reduced electrical power being used in a given acceleration zone, Mercedes will have more overall power to deploy down the whole straight, again - relatively.

Your argument would only hold true if teams would never run out of electrical power on any straight.

I understand the competitive argument but safety comes first for the FIA.

Nope, your argument would only hold true if teams never run out of electrical energy. Either you deploy the 350 kW for shorter or you deploy the 200 kW for longer, but the total energy deployed doesn't change (because harvesting would remain 350 kW in both scenarios), and thus the relative power will remain the same on average across the lap. If we assume Merc has the best ICE, in the 200 kW scenario they'd have slightly better relative power early on the straight, but slightly worse relative power from the middle to the end of the straight where the 200 kW can deploy for longer (where under the normal 350 kW scenario they would be clipping or super-clipping). On the whole it would even out exactly because the energy available is the same, it's basic physics.

It doesn't matter what the proportion of the ICE : battery ratio of 'peak power' is ; ultimately the energy for the race comes from fuel.
For the same metered fuel flow, the trick/illegal engine that has more efficient BSFC (via compression ratio trick or some other trick) will be superior.

[brakeboosted]

We can’t let the competitive interests of one team go before the health and safety of the drivers. We don’t want big crashes at the start stemming from huge speed deltas. That’s something I hope even the most partial posters on here would agree with. It’s also fair that everyone gets a chance to spool their turbo regardless of where they start on the grid.

Ferrari could foresee the problems but they could not foresee that the FIA would be forced to make changes on safety grounds before the season, other manufacturers clearly bet on that. I’m sorry to say it but Fred tried to get cute and got outsmarted by the Totonator.

It seems to me the other teams perfectly well knew about these problems and could 'foresee' this issue too, and took advantage of that to complain right before the season started, making the FIA panic over safety fearmongering from the teams, letting them get away with ignoring the problem on the technical side and neutering the advantage of anybody who actually worked to improve their situation with starts.

EDIT: Also, if FIA do decide to change to reduce electrical power, that will further help Mercedes use their engine advantage, since they'll have proportionally more ICE power than electrical power than currently. Would be a 3rd important win for Mercedes before we've even run a lap.

The total tractive power advantage would remain the same if the electrical power is reduced. The power split is irrelevant to how effective that advantage is.

If what you are suggesting is true, Mercedes would be advocating for the largest possible reduction in e-power they physically can. Currently they are doing the opposite.

[Luscion]

From Autoracer's livestream

• The SF-26 is a car that was "born well"

• Both drivers are happy with how it behaves

• Its a car that reacts when they make changes, it does what they expect it to do with every change they make

• Ferrari are keeping a low profile communication wise and "letting the car do the talking" this time

[f1isgood]

It's funny Autoracer says all these things about "low-profile" while it is precisely them that makes everything a news .

The car certainly looks very good. It's rather impressive how, through major regulation changes, 2017, 2022, and 2026 Ferrari have done well. I am considering the front wing changes in 2019 not as major. But yeah.

[f1316]

From Autoracer's livestream

• The SF-26 is a car that was "born well"

• Both drivers are happy with how it behaves

• Its a car that reacts when they make changes, it does what they expect it to do with every change they make

• Ferrari are keeping a low profile communication wise and "letting the car do the talking" this time

Thank you for posting something interesting and focused on the Ferrari car (not carrying on a pointless polemic - even if it’s one I fundamentally agree with).