2026 Scuderia Ferrari HP F1 Team

[upsidedowntoast]

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.

Well today’s news brings it forward a bit: https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/f1-2 ... s-earlier/

The questions for me are still:

(1) is this new test actually sufficient in testing what the engine does on track? The talk is that Mercedes already passed a hot test but, if so, I don’t know why they wouldn’t introduce it immediately.
(2) The other bit of gossip I read (in the comments to the above) is that Mercedes’ trick isn’t about increasing CR to 18:1 but rather preventing it falling below 16:1 (since that’s normally what engines would do) - but then, that wouldn’t contravene any part of it the regs (letter, spirit, measurement- whatever) so then I can’t believe that’s right as simply maintaining 16:1 is absolutely fine
(3) is the advantage Mercedes has from this significant? Toto says no, others say yes (I’m inclined to believe the latter, of course). If it is more a question of maintaining the 16:1 limit then it’s not as significant as increasing it
(4) since the cold test will be dropped for 2027, how will this influence the other ICEs? Presumably everyone will build engines that are above the limit when cold and drop to exactly 16:1 when hot. Is that really a good outcome? Seems messy - I would have preferred a solution for 2027 that includes some form of sensor to measure it “at all times” (albeit I’m sure that’s much more difficult than I’ve made it sound)


So to answer your question: I think it’s all a bit unsatisfactory for everyone and, tbh, that’s what makes it ok-ish. Bad would have been do nothing and to reflect the opinion of the (biased) British press - ie Mercedes have been clever and the rest just have sour grapes because they didn’t think of it. Good would have been to measure it properly at all times from race one - but tbh that’s not especially feasible and the FIA are to blame for not shutting it down when in consultation with Mercedes. So imho it his is ok-ish, yes.

Well from 2027 at least the advantage to have 16.1 in hot conditions will be the same for everyone and MB trick will be nullified.
Now let's not discuss the elephant in the room that for the whole 2026 MB will have something better than the others. Same old story.

> Is the advantage Mercedes has significant

The whole time the press was reporting something like 18:1 and then now they're saying the real number was closer to 16.3:1, which after accounting for noise and normal inefficiencies does actually correspond to a single-digit horsepower advantage like Wolff was claiming rather than the 20-30 that Max was claiming. Which, from a purely technical/engineering perspective, seems far more realistic to me. FWIW I never subscribed to the "secret chamber" theory because, again, the origin of that theory was the auto-motor-und-sport.de article that literally went on to say in the sentence right after [paraphrased], "we asked an FIA engineer about this and they said nah that would get spotted and banned immediately".

If it actually was super significant I'm sure there would be a lot more lawsuits and bribery going around. Not to mention going from 18:1 back to 16:1 would completely screw up their aerodynamics and fuel, after live testing was already complete.

[nico5]

50kg is not unreasonable. The C4 is 7-8 tenths faster than the C3 that will be used in Bahrain. Considering that he did a few low 1.32s on the C3, then the C3 runs were likely done with less fuel than the C4 run.

Bahrain is the optimum circuit for exploitation of 2026 cars. 2026 car accelerates faster in all traction zones, is very similar in low and medium speed, and only slower in high speed but there’s only 1 high speed corner in Bahrain.

Ferrari's fastest lap on C3 was a 32.6, anything lower was done on C4.
Merc was doing 33.1 on C3 (3 laps) and then went on through the pitlane for a 10-lap long run starting in the high-35s. Given nobody (Merc included) went close to that in race sims, I am inclined to believe Merc finished that stint with no fuel left, and started the flying lap with around 20-25kg (14 laps at 1.5kg/lap), max 30kg.
Also, in the 33.1 lap, Merc was on par with Ferrari if not faster in the corners, and only lost on energy deployment.
Unless you believe Ferrari has a massive advantage on Merc, Ferrari's C3-C4 runs must have also been in the 20-30kg range, best case scenario.

[Wouter]

Mr. & Mrs. Leclerc:

[sucof]

Can we agree that we have seen more than enough about the marriage???
I did not know this is a celebrity tabloid, not an F1 forum for the Ferrari F1 team....

[F1NAC]

Chill dude. It’s only one or two posts…

[SoulPancake13]

50kg is not unreasonable. The C4 is 7-8 tenths faster than the C3 that will be used in Bahrain. Considering that he did a few low 1.32s on the C3, then the C3 runs were likely done with less fuel than the C4 run.

Bahrain is the optimum circuit for exploitation of 2026 cars. 2026 car accelerates faster in all traction zones, is very similar in low and medium speed, and only slower in high speed but there’s only 1 high speed corner in Bahrain.

Ferrari's fastest lap on C3 was a 32.6, anything lower was done on C4.
Merc was doing 33.1 on C3 (3 laps) and then went on through the pitlane for a 10-lap long run starting in the high-35s. Given nobody (Merc included) went close to that in race sims, I am inclined to believe Merc finished that stint with no fuel left, and started the flying lap with around 20-25kg (14 laps at 1.5kg/lap), max 30kg.
Also, in the 33.1 lap, Merc was on par with Ferrari if not faster in the corners, and only lost on energy deployment.
Unless you believe Ferrari has a massive advantage on Merc, Ferrari's C3-C4 runs must have also been in the 20-30kg range, best case scenario.

all I can say is that AutoRacer is not only the most reliable Ferrari news outlet, but that the people who reported this re-iterated again that they stand by what they reported. The engine was turned up to offset the "fuel", which perfectly explains how Ferrari could be slower in the corners while winning out elsewhere...

[ScuderiaLeo]

Does anyone have access to AR's latest article? From the title, it sounds like the rotating wing won't be present for Melbourne.

[catent]

Does anyone have access to AR's latest article? From the title, it sounds like the rotating wing won't be present for Melbourne.

I do not have an AR subscription, but I read on another forum that Ferrari intended for the reverse wing to be brought by race 7, but are attempting to expedite it to week 4.

They estimate it could be worth ~5kw / ~7hp (how they reached those numbers, and if they are accurate, I'm not clear).

Take it for what it's worth, and with a grain of salt. Presumably those with AR access can either verify or rectify the above info.

[CRazyLemon]

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.

Well today’s news brings it forward a bit: https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/f1-2 ... s-earlier/

The questions for me are still:

(1) is this new test actually sufficient in testing what the engine does on track? The talk is that Mercedes already passed a hot test but, if so, I don’t know why they wouldn’t introduce it immediately.
(2) The other bit of gossip I read (in the comments to the above) is that Mercedes’ trick isn’t about increasing CR to 18:1 but rather preventing it falling below 16:1 (since that’s normally what engines would do) - but then, that wouldn’t contravene any part of it the regs (letter, spirit, measurement- whatever) so then I can’t believe that’s right as simply maintaining 16:1 is absolutely fine
(3) is the advantage Mercedes has from this significant? Toto says no, others say yes (I’m inclined to believe the latter, of course). If it is more a question of maintaining the 16:1 limit then it’s not as significant as increasing it
(4) since the cold test will be dropped for 2027, how will this influence the other ICEs? Presumably everyone will build engines that are above the limit when cold and drop to exactly 16:1 when hot. Is that really a good outcome? Seems messy - I would have preferred a solution for 2027 that includes some form of sensor to measure it “at all times” (albeit I’m sure that’s much more difficult than I’ve made it sound)


So to answer your question: I think it’s all a bit unsatisfactory for everyone and, tbh, that’s what makes it ok-ish. Bad would have been do nothing and to reflect the opinion of the (biased) British press - ie Mercedes have been clever and the rest just have sour grapes because they didn’t think of it. Good would have been to measure it properly at all times from race one - but tbh that’s not especially feasible and the FIA are to blame for not shutting it down when in consultation with Mercedes. So imho it his is ok-ish, yes.

Well from 2027 at least the advantage to have 16.1 in hot conditions will be the same for everyone and MB trick will be nullified.
Now let's not discuss the elephant in the room that for the whole 2026 MB will have something better than the others. Same old story.

If option 2 is correct, then Mercedes deserve it. Personally it sits better with me if it is option 2 because that is clever engineering and not circumventing rules based on the testing procedure. Also then surely every engine manufacturer should have been striving for that in the 1st place! Which makes it doubtful it is option 2 but it also should mean they don't carry the advantage for the entire 2026 season.

[Seanspeed]

all I can say is that AutoRacer is not only the most reliable Ferrari news outlet, but that the people who reported this re-iterated again that they stand by what they reported. The engine was turned up to offset the "fuel", which perfectly explains how Ferrari could be slower in the corners while winning out elsewhere...

Again, if they had 50kg of fuel, then these cars are basically already as fast as last year's cars. That's like 3/4 of a full tank! Straight up like the second stint of a race level of fuel.

Just no way in hell.

You can also just watch the car and visibly notice that it's reacting like it's light on fuel.

It's honestly just an absolutely outlandish claim. And goes to show that none of these F1 press outlets should be treated as gospel and will make stuff up when they've got nothing else to report for engagement.

[AR3-GP]

Again, if they had 50kg of fuel, then these cars are basically already as fast as last year's cars. That's like 3/4 of a full tank! Straight up like the second stint of a race level of fuel.

Just no way in hell.

You can also just watch the car and visibly notice that it's reacting like it's light on fuel.

The cars have a shorter wheelbase and a starting weight which is 30kg less than previous gen. So 50kg of fuel in 2026 is like a 2025 car on low fuel.

Also the speed of the 2026 cars compared to 2025 is track specific. They will be closer in Bahrain than most other circuits. Melbourne will be further away.

[venkyhere]

https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/wolff-re ... trick-saga

what did I say. a week back ?

For the same reason why Totonator has camera-bomber-sheikh in his pocket.

it's all a giant circus. And we are the fools talking gibberish in the internet.

[AR3-GP]

50kg is not unreasonable. The C4 is 7-8 tenths faster than the C3 that will be used in Bahrain. Considering that he did a few low 1.32s on the C3, then the C3 runs were likely done with less fuel than the C4 run.

Bahrain is the optimum circuit for exploitation of 2026 cars. 2026 car accelerates faster in all traction zones, is very similar in low and medium speed, and only slower in high speed but there’s only 1 high speed corner in Bahrain.

Ferrari's fastest lap on C3 was a 32.6, anything lower was done on C4.
Merc was doing 33.1 on C3 (3 laps) and then went on through the pitlane for a 10-lap long run starting in the high-35s. Given nobody (Merc included) went close to that in race sims, I am inclined to believe Merc finished that stint with no fuel left, and started the flying lap with around 20-25kg (14 laps at 1.5kg/lap), max 30kg.
Also, in the 33.1 lap, Merc was on par with Ferrari if not faster in the corners, and only lost on energy deployment.
Unless you believe Ferrari has a massive advantage on Merc, Ferrari's C3-C4 runs must have also been in the 20-30kg range, best case scenario.

all I can say is that AutoRacer is not only the most reliable Ferrari news outlet, but that the people who reported this re-iterated again that they stand by what they reported. The engine was turned up to offset the "fuel", which perfectly explains how Ferrari could be slower in the corners while winning out elsewhere...

I think the data supports Ferrari using a higher power mode on that fast lap. I calculated the straight-line acceleration peaks for the night sessions and plotted this for the top 4 teams. It is unfortunately only using velocity data from the fastf1 api so a grain of salt might be needed. Anyway, the vertical axis is the peak longitudinal (straight-line) accel. It is more or less always occurring at the T10 exit.



Comments in no particular order:

(1) Ferrari were at the highest accel. level that they showed so far in a best lap (this does not capture any games they could have played on slow laps with higher acceleration levels. I didn't check that)
(2) Merc/RBR/McL are down a lot from their peaks when they did their push laps on the last day.
(3) Mclaren runs are closer to a hypothetical upper limit than Mercedes, since they exhibit consistently higher accelerations in the push laps whether that is due to fuel or power mode.

[dans79]

They estimate it could be worth ~5kw / ~7hp (how they reached those numbers, and if they are accurate, I'm not clear).

It's likely based off less drag. With a lower drag wing you will use less power to accelerate to the same speed as you would with a higher drag wing. You could also accelerate to a higher speed, and then recover more energy under during regeneration/braking. What method is better would be track dependent and require simulation. It would also give you mote tactical options when it comes to overtaking.

[Luscion]

Does anyone have access to AR's latest article? From the title, it sounds like the rotating wing won't be present for Melbourne.

Despite Vasseur speaking of a Spec A, there will be no need for any Spec B of the SF-26, the engineers led by Loic Serra are satisfied despite winter concerns. Some engineers are confident that the grid will be more split than in recent years. Everyone sees Merc as the favorites but Ferrari see themselves as the second force

The first rotating wing was just a prototype in terms of the actuation system to make sure it worked on track, The real challenge was primarily to achieve a reversal of the upper movable part of the wing in under the 400 milliseconds imposed by the regulations, the test of the wing was positive and its effectively equivalent to having a boost of 4 to 5 KW on the straight. A more evolved version is under evaluation, including the aerodynamic profile design of the wing. The deadline for it being introduced is race 7 in Canada but it could be brought forward as soon as the 4th race in Bahrain (or whatever track the might substitute it with)

The FTM flap in front of the exhaust has passed its assessment, both Leclerc and Hamilton are positive about the package and are both heavily involved in the development of the car


Also