2026 Scuderia Ferrari HP F1 Team

[deadhead]

Thoughts on this:

[dialtone]

Thoughts on this:

These cars don't suffer from chewing the plank like the old generation.

Porpoising meant that you did need to balance your straights and corners because if you were too low, then the straight line speed was going to increase floor downforce and lower the car further than needed.

These floors are flat like all the cars before ground effect, they have some suction effect going on, but every team is an expert on this, plus running lower in corners doesn't actually help diffuser expansion, hence the comeback of rake.

[ScuderiaLeo]

According to that video as well, looks like Ferrari sent the first wing picture to FIA last July, they wanted it to do 4-5 laps, and that potentially another 3-4 teams already have similar different wing designs in the works.

EDIT: Other items of note:

* He refers to clients vs mercedes engine not so much as a new engine but a different engine mapping, and since Mercedes burned 2 ICE during tests they may actually run with the client mapping.
* There's 4 tiers of performance according to paddock, AMR being the 4th tier, and within each tier it's really hard to predict performance.
* Lots of new changes on the cars on thursday morning.

By thursday you mean thursday (day 5) of the test right?

Thanks for sharing as well

[dialtone]

According to that video as well, looks like Ferrari sent the first wing picture to FIA last July, they wanted it to do 4-5 laps, and that potentially another 3-4 teams already have similar different wing designs in the works.

EDIT: Other items of note:

* He refers to clients vs mercedes engine not so much as a new engine but a different engine mapping, and since Mercedes burned 2 ICE during tests they may actually run with the client mapping.
* There's 4 tiers of performance according to paddock, AMR being the 4th tier, and within each tier it's really hard to predict performance.
* Lots of new changes on the cars on thursday morning.

By thursday you mean thursday (day 5) of the test right?

Thanks for sharing as well

Thursday the day they assemble the cars in Melbourne.

I would also add that the guest journalist talked about Petronas still being an unknown and that getting information about the fuel is incredibly complicated.

Chinchero, the guest journo, is close with Antonelli and his family, not that he would know secret stuff, but he has some access. He’s also not overly technical or an engineer so might not know exactly what he’s talking about.

[CRazyLemon]

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.

Is it ok'ish? Depends on the advantage really. How much damage to the championship could be inflicted in 6 months?

How about getting Mercedes to determine a value in HP or KW and limiting their engine in someway?

That seems fair, you can't redesign the engine overnight but you can't keep your advantage.

[dialtone]

That seems fair, you can't redesign the engine overnight but you can't keep your advantage.

It is not the responsibility of the judge to figure out how the team should comply with the rules. If rules don't apply because they are inconvenient, then they are no rules but recommendations.

[Luscion]

https://autoracer.it/analisi-test-parte ... accontano/

Ferrari is the only team to have completed a fully representative race simulation in genuinely penalising conditions, namely with a track temperature of 44°C. Mercedes ran at an even higher 46°C with Russell, but during an early phase of the test, without the complete aerodynamic package. This detail is important, because it prevents that simulation from being read as the definitive picture of the W17. For Mercedes, the most accurate reading was obtained by aggregating all long runs of more than nine laps on each compound, calculating degradation through linear regression, and reconstructing a full race distance of 57 laps.

Ferrari showed a first stint on the C3 with a degradation of 0.092 seconds per lap. This is a high number, but perfectly consistent with those track temperatures. The picture changes when looking at the stints on the C2: 0.019 and 0.022 seconds per lap. These are excellent numbers, the best in the entire comparison. It means that the SF-26, at least in Bahrain, handled the Medium tyre with outstanding thermal and mechanical stability, even superior to its competitors. The regression curve is almost flat — there is no cliff, no final spike on a compound that, strategically, is often the most decisive in Bahrain.

Red Bull tells a somewhat different story. Verstappen's C3 shows a degradation of 0.065 seconds per lap, a contained figure in track conditions of around 26°C. It is a solid value, but it cannot be directly compared to the 0.092 recorded by Ferrari on the same compound in the first stint at 44°C. The difference of nearly twenty degrees of track temperature has a significant impact on the degradation curve: in extreme conditions, every 10°C can be worth in the order of one or two hundredths of a second per lap in terms of linear slope. The Ferrari number, read in this light, takes on a different meaning, because the SF-26 had to operate in a considerably more punishing thermal context. In the second stint on the C2 compound, Verstappen shows a very competitive degradation of 0.030 seconds per lap; however, in another stint on that same compound it rises to 0.087. This oscillation may suggest a car that is somewhat more sensitive in terms of its operating window — that is, when the RB22 finds the right setup, tyre management is excellent; when the window shifts, degradation increases

[bluechris]

Is there a posibility that the car will be so gently on the tyres that they will have problems heating them as before?

[API]

That seems fair, you can't redesign the engine overnight but you can't keep your advantage.

It is not the responsibility of the judge to figure out how the team should comply with the rules. If rules don't apply because they are inconvenient, then they are no rules but recommendations.

If the rules state when and under what circumstances the measurement is to be made, and at the same time, that this measurement is for the entire duration of the competition, everything is clear. Period.
There is no need to invent anything, just act according to the rules.

[deadhead]

Is there a posibility that the car will be so gently on the tyres that they will have problems heating them as before?

They should have learned their lesson from the last two seasons but let’s see

[fourmula1]

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.

I think there is even more nuance and each example is different from another. To be clear I am not saying the FIA act correctly, or have a clear definition of "illegal" or whatever. I am just reflecting on how they've treated each case and why I think they treat them differently. And in every single situation past and future, entertainment & money will always be a factor.

I think the FIA looked at the Ferrari engine differently because it was "deception" vs. "clever interpretation" of the rules for lack of better wording.

Everyone had wings that flexed and everyone passed the tests. So there was some lead time to change.

Mini DRS change was quicker if I remember correctly, because it was a clear immediate trick, used by fewer teams.

Reportedly Merc shared with FIA ahead of time and got the approval for whatever they might be doing now.

[Frank73]

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.

I think there is even more nuance and each example is different from another. To be clear I am not saying the FIA act correctly, or have a clear definition of "illegal" or whatever. I am just reflecting on how they've treated each case and why I think they treat them differently. And in every single situation past and future, entertainment & money will always be a factor.

I think the FIA looked at the Ferrari engine differently because it was "deception" vs. "clever interpretation" of the rules for lack of better wording.

Everyone had wings that flexed and everyone passed the tests. So there was some lead time to change.

Mini DRS change was quicker if I remember correctly, because it was a clear immediate trick, used by fewer teams.

Reportedly Merc shared with FIA ahead of time and got the approval for whatever they might be doing now.

Means nothing. Even assuming FIA decided bona fide -which is an overstatement, considering what Mercedes has been allowed to walk away with in the last 10 years or so- teams could come up with reason why a certain solution is indeed not rule-compliant that FIA completely missed (maybe because they thought of it too but abandoned due to rule-breaching concern).

[nitrotech]

Fans of Ferrari, Red Bull, Audi and Honda should send warning letters to their favorite team, asking them vote an YES for the changes in testing procedure that FIA has presented in front of the manufacturers. So that FIA can change the regulations about testing and let Mercedes GET CAUGHT! No amount of allegations and forum pages filling is going change things, unless 4 out of 5 manufacturers vote an YES. It's in your own favorite team's control right now! 3 more days to go before e-vote closes. If your favorite team/manufacturer doesn't vote an YES, then you have no one but your own favorite team to blame if Mercedes walks away with wins and championships.

[aberracus]

Could be possible that Ferrari only wanted a clear interpretation of the rules so they start working on their own version of the ice? it will go with other rumors that we have heard coming from manarello. Also, if Mercedes are pushing for only reducing energy deploying to 300, FIA should go with 250, they have made their engine to create more energy from the ICE and if they don't have where to put it they will be the more damaged PU constructor. that's good for cheating.

[motobaleno]

Fans of Ferrari, Red Bull, Audi and Honda should send warning letters to their favorite team, asking them vote an YES for the changes in testing procedure that FIA has presented in front of the manufacturers. So that FIA can change the regulations about testing and let Mercedes GET CAUGHT! No amount of allegations and forum pages filling is going change things, unless 4 out of 5 manufacturers vote an YES. It's in your own favorite team's control right now! 3 more days to go before e-vote closes. If your favorite team/manufacturer doesn't vote an YES, then you have no one but your own favorite team to blame if Mercedes walks away with wins and championships.

I'm worried that the 130 C test is pure smoke and mirrors and I'm pretty sure mercedes would pass it. As a matter of fact, most media called it a complete political victory by mercedes...I fear that if any team want to really face the problem it should be carried out of the FIA-F1 circus, raising the question to the TAS/CAS.