2026 Scuderia Ferrari HP F1 Team

[catent]

Leclerc mechanical failure…..

Which he likely caused when he crashed the car AGAIN yesterday. The front needed a rebuild and that’s where the competent that failed sits (incredibly rare for that to fail under normal conditions too).

Crashed the car “AGAIN” … as if the Monaco incident was driver error? That’s nonsense.

Technically it was driver error induced though. Brakes warm-up is down to the driver isn't it?

Neither of us know exactly what happened. Only the team does.

I would ask you to do the following thought experiment: If Hamilton lazily slid into the wall under the same circumstances, and he indicated the rear brakes did not work as they should have, would you also deem such an incident ‘driver error’?

I suppose only you truly know the answer to that question, but I think it’s rather clear the answer to my hypothetical would be ‘no’, had the driver involved been named ‘Hamilton’.

[leblanc]

There are only a very few reasons why you would want hotter IATs. The only two I can think of that benefit the current engine formula are better lean burning and better control of combustion phasing. This could be thought of a relatively stop-gap fix to the smaller turbo design constraints.

Look at the car.

Cooling package from Friday.


what they ran in qualifying and the race.


If you can run hot and not loose a lot of power from the ICE, you can potentially gain back more performance aerodynamically.

we are speaking of IATs and the intercooler

[dans79]

we are speaking of IATs and the intercooler

I know, The rads for the intercooler are usually in the sidepods. Thus my point still stands, if they can run hotter they don't need as much cooling, and that has aerodynamic benefits.

[dans79]

I would ask you to do the following thought experiment: If Hamilton lazily slid into the wall under the same circumstances, and he indicated the rear brakes did not work as they should have, would you also deem such an incident ‘driver error’?

I suppose only you truly know the answer to that question, but I think it’s rather clear the answer to my hypothetical would be ‘no’, had the driver involved been named ‘Hamilton’.

As I quoted earlier, Charles chose to run those specific brakes. Unless he lied to the press, he is predominately to blame.

If Hamilton did it, then it would be on him.

[NoDivergence]

And merits are very easy to assigns as well. Watch:
Charles does the simulator work to start from a good setup in Barcelona for Hamilton's win -> Hamilton missed FP1 with a whole new aero package and hottest temps of the year
Charles improves setup in FP3 and Hamilton's copies it -> See above
Charles sees Hamilton carrying 10 kph faster in Turn 4 -> crashes
Charles has a good drive setting himself for 2 stops making Merc questioning who to cover -> Merc didn't once think about Leclerc, it was Norris who they were watching
Good strategy from the strategy team -> haven't seen anyone say this was Hamilton's doing but I guarantee he bitched enough about the last time they didn't pit in safety car
Good pit stops -> huh
Aston martin brilliant car stopping on track -> huh
Merc's fighting amongst themself -> huh

Now, for my "statement" based on no data and pure gut feel.
Monaco crash happens because the brake blending/regen strategy of Ferrari is not that good...yet. After running behind the safety car the battery was full in preparation for the restart and so no regen was available. The brake blending strategy however assumed that the car will be slowdown to some extend by the MGU-K and to prioritized the energy recovery it delayed the brake pads application.
This aligns what what Charles was saying the front left was working (no regen on front axle so full application) front right was half working (fully working but wheel was unloaded due to right hand corner) and the rear brakes were not working (no regen available but the brakes application was delay as normally are)

Monaco crash doesn't happen without Leclerc driving over the damaged track. A lot of drivers made it through the corner fine. Only Stroll and Leclerc didn't notice

[f1316]

Wow, WAAAAAAYYYY too much driver yin-yang in this thread.

This is about the Ferrari team. I echo the suggestion of some kind of driver thread or board so we can keep the team topics focused on what they’re supposed to be about.

[dans79]

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-fe ... /10831180/

The claim is the First ADUO upgrade will be in Austria if the FIA signs off, and that shell has a new fuel for the upgrade.

[djones]

There seems to be some talk of the first upgrade and 5 bhp.

Surely they would not rush and waste 1/2 upgrades for such a little increase on power?

[dans79]

There seems to be some talk of the first upgrade and 5 bhp.

Surely they would not rush and waste 1/2 upgrades for such a little increase on power?

It all depends on what context the Hp numbers were given. For example maybe the intercooler by itself is only with 5HP, but when the new fuel is included it's worth 10 to 15HP etc.

Imo, that's the problem with the F1 press now, none of them are technical enough to fully understand what they are being told, not to mention knowing what follow up questions to ask.

[Sidiamal]

I was under the impression that once your fuel was homologated that was it for the season.

[mzso]

Leclerc mechanical failure…..

Which he likely caused when he crashed the car AGAIN yesterday. The front needed a rebuild and that’s where the competent that failed sits (incredibly rare for that to fail under normal conditions too).

Pulled out of the air. And the whole hydraulics system failed, because he couldn't even shift gears, nor brake properly.

Single point of failure system - if the steering system leaks then the hydraulic system leaks. It's one system for steering, gears, etc., and the rear portion of the braking system controlled by the car (hydraulically).

Even if that is the case. It's the team's responsibility to give a driver a functioning car. Not that I see how breaking the front wing would cause a failure like this. We must have seen a hundred crashes that are like this or worse in a year, without anyone having a hydraulics failure.

[dans79]

I was under the impression that once your fuel was homologated that was it for the season.

I don't see any thing about that in the rules. The only thing i see in the rules is that the FIA must approve/Homogenate it.

As I read it, a bunch of red tape exists to get all the testing and approval done, so I assume the FIA thought that was enough of a deterrent.

[karana]

I was under the impression that once your fuel was homologated that was it for the season.

Fuel can be updated with ADUO

[leblanc]

we are speaking of IATs and the intercooler

I know, The rads for the intercooler are usually in the sidepods. Thus my point still stands, if they can run hotter they don't need as much cooling, and that has aerodynamic benefits.

We are describing the same phenomena with different ontologies. I appreciate the integration. However, my answer includes personal conjecture on additional combustion benefits beyond simple aerodynamic benefits to the car. In this sense, they may be partially solving the ICE power deficit while also reducing drag on the car, which is the most intelligent and practical avenue to take in the context of the car's current relative performance.

[Just_a_fan]

Pulled out of the air. And the whole hydraulics system failed, because he couldn't even shift gears, nor brake properly.

Single point of failure system - if the steering system leaks then the hydraulic system leaks. It's one system for steering, gears, etc., and the rear portion of the braking system controlled by the car (hydraulically).

Even if that is the case. It's the team's responsibility to give a driver a functioning car. Not that I see how breaking the front wing would cause a failure like this. We must have seen a hundred crashes that are like this or worse in a year, without anyone having a hydraulics failure.

So the team are deliberately breaking Charles's car are they? Because that's the alternative.