2026 Scuderia Ferrari HP F1 Team

[PlatinumZealot]

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’.

You would actually find I am very consistent on these sorts of incidents. Yes of course I would blame Lewis for not checking that his brakes are working before taking a last minute turn in, wishing that they would somehow warm up at that very moment.

The Monaco crash with Charles was a very subtle one. The front brakes have enough stopping power on their own to negotiate that corner with lots of margin, Charles knows this obviously, but it was also obvious that he took the corner with a similar line as he normally does as if all the brakes were warmed up. On the other hand, if he knew the rears were cold he would have adjusted the brake balance or regen and took a different line. This is what I mean when I say it was a driver error. It could also be ERS setting (can also be driver error).

When I was the onboard... He braked at so many points on the track even down hill.. And the brakes see fine. This is why I said orignially that it's either engine braking (via ERS map) doing something it shouldn't or driver error. Charles squarely blamed the brake component itself. That of course brought the ire of Brembo.

[PlatinumZealot]

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

They wouldn't use that term "running" hot for intake air. The engine running hot has always been for jacket water temperatures.

The charge air cooler radiator is placed in front of the engine radiator so it always gets the coldest air.. Even if you reduce the cooling vents a bit, it won't suffer as much as the jacket water radiators.

You want the coldest engine intake air as possible.. Whereas running the jacket water a bit hotter affects the hot metal surfaces inside the combustion chamber.

This was always the case even in naturally aspirated regulations.

[mzso]

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.

There are countless alternatives. But it's more likely they're incompetent. Either didn't fix something, or was flawed to begin with.
Not that I didn't suspect internal sabotage at Ferrari during the years. Particularly when the favorite at the time had no technical issues for many months, while the other driver suffered a technical DNF every few events. I don't think at this stage they can afford such things.

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

Fuel can be updated with ADUO

ADUO is irrelevant. They can update it freely. It requires that lengthy homologation process though.

[karana]

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

Fuel can be updated with ADUO

ADUO is irrelevant. They can update it freely. It requires that lengthy homologation process though.

I'd say Appendix C5 and Appendix C4 make it very clear that that's not true. According to the table in Appendix C4 fuel can only be upgraded for the 2027 and 2029 seasons and additionaly with ADUO .

[dans79]

There are countless alternatives. But it's more likely they're incompetent. Either didn't fix something, or was flawed to begin with.

Since we don't know what specifically failed, it could be something as simple as the crash on Saturday caused an internal crack in a rigid hydraulic line.

The line might have looked fine, but if they had run a ultrasonic test (not common at all) on it they would have seen that it has an internal fracture of some kind.

During the race the part would fatigue at an increased rate until ultimately it failed.

[dans79]

I'd say Appendix C5 and Appendix C4 make it very clear that that's not true. According to the table in Appendix C4 fuel can only be upgraded for the 2027 and 2029 seasons and additionaly with ADUO .

Since you are so sure, please cite the specific regulations.

[karana]

I'd say Appendix C5 and Appendix C4 make it very clear that that's not true. According to the table in Appendix C4 fuel can only be upgraded for the 2027 and 2029 seasons and additionaly with ADUO .

Since you are so sure, please cite the specific regulations.

It's row 79 of the table on page 234 in Appendix C4 of the technical regulations.

Article 3.3 of Appendix C5:

For the years 2027, 2028, 2029 and 2030, upgrades to the components marked with a “check” in the
table of Appendix C4, in the relevant column for each year, may be carried out. Irrespective of
changes permitted under ADUO according to Article 3.3 of this Appendix, such upgrades must be
introduced for the first Competition of the year when they are allowed and used for the whole
Championship season.

https://www.fia.com/system/files/docume ... -05-07.pdf

[sucof]

Highly interesting sentence in Autosport article:
"Ferrari's engineers are trying to identify the cause of the issue, with it suggested that Leclerc's incident at Antony Noghes in Monaco may have had similarities to the failure experienced in Spain."

Suggesting, the same electronical failure happened in Monaco and Spain during both of Leclerc's DNF's.

[f1316]

Highly interesting sentence in Autosport article:
"Ferrari's engineers are trying to identify the cause of the issue, with it suggested that Leclerc's incident at Antony Noghes in Monaco may have had similarities to the failure experienced in Spain."

Suggesting, the same electronical failure happened in Monaco and Spain during both of Leclerc's DNF's.

Was Spain an electronic failure though? I understood it was hydraulic. Still, it could be that both were hydraulic failures? In both cases, he also crashed in qualifying though, and you wonder if those incidents could also have been part of the cause.

[sucof]

Highly interesting sentence in Autosport article:
"Ferrari's engineers are trying to identify the cause of the issue, with it suggested that Leclerc's incident at Antony Noghes in Monaco may have had similarities to the failure experienced in Spain."

Suggesting, the same electronical failure happened in Monaco and Spain during both of Leclerc's DNF's.

Was Spain an electronic failure though? I understood it was hydraulic. Still, it could be that both were hydraulic failures? In both cases, he also crashed in qualifying though, and you wonder if those incidents could also have been part of the cause.

The article seemed to suggest this is an info from Ferrari, that they were electrical.
I am sure all the hydraulic systems are controlled electronically, perhaps some of them have the pressure coming from electrical pumps even, and of course the valves are electrical too...

[PlatinumZealot]

Highly interesting sentence in Autosport article:
"Ferrari's engineers are trying to identify the cause of the issue, with it suggested that Leclerc's incident at Antony Noghes in Monaco may have had similarities to the failure experienced in Spain."

Suggesting, the same electronical failure happened in Monaco and Spain during both of Leclerc's DNF's.

Was Spain an electronic failure though? I understood it was hydraulic. Still, it could be that both were hydraulic failures? In both cases, he also crashed in qualifying though, and you wonder if those incidents could also have been part of the cause.

He bumped the front end of the car in both qualifyings. Hard to see how that caused any electronics issues.

I can see how the Barcelona crash affected his power steering though.

[Raleigh]

Regardless of anything the data says Monaco race crash was caused by locking up on loose tarmac. There was no brake failure, nothing worth further discussion.

[catent]

Regardless of anything the data says Monaco race crash was caused by locking up on loose tarmac. There was no brake failure, nothing worth further discussion.

Leclerc didn’t lockup during the Monaco crash. He lazily slid into the wall, fronts nor the rears ever locked, let alone appeared to meaningfully engage.

As someone who has followed Leclerc’s career fairly closely, he’s not someone who isn’t capable of taking accountability for true mistakes (such as Barcelona qualifying). If he blames the car or otherwise points to a mechanical malfunction, it’s a safe bet something was actually wrong.

And moreover, he was complaining about these same brake issues at Canada and throughout Monaco practice; this wasn’t a convenient excuse that first cropped up after an incident, but rather clearly an ongoing issue.

In fact, immediately after the Monaco crash, Leclerc took some responsibility for not changing to the CI brake discs earlier, during the Monaco weekend, since he knew these issues were ongoing, but opted to stick with the familiar Brembos to avoid any nasty surprises at a really important track to him. That Leclerc acknowledged (with the benefit of hindsight) that he should’ve switched to the CI brake discs during the Monaco weekend should 100% confirm that his brake issues at Monaco (and Canada) were entirely real and legitimate.

The state of the tarmac may have played a role but the claims that Leclerc locked up and that his brakes were functioning entirely fine - both of those things are untrue.

[Raleigh]

Regardless of anything the data says Monaco race crash was caused by locking up on loose tarmac. There was no brake failure, nothing worth further discussion.

Leclerc didn’t lockup during the Monaco crash. He lazily slid into the wall, fronts nor the rears ever locked, let alone appeared to meaningfully engage.

As someone who has followed Leclerc’s career fairly closely, he’s not someone who isn’t capable of taking accountability for true mistakes (such as Barcelona qualifying). If he blames the car or otherwise points to a mechanical malfunction, it’s a safe bet something was actually wrong.

And moreover, he was complaining about these same brake issues at Canada and throughout Monaco practice; this wasn’t a convenient excuse that first cropped up after an incident, but rather clearly an ongoing issue.

In fact, immediately after the Monaco crash, Leclerc took some responsibility for not changing to the CI brake discs earlier, during the Monaco weekend, since he knew these issues were ongoing, but opted to stick with the familiar Brembos to avoid any nasty surprises at a really important track to him. That Leclerc acknowledged (with the benefit of hindsight) that he should’ve switched to the CI brake discs during the Monaco weekend should 100% confirm that his brake issues at Monaco (and Canada) were entirely real and legitimate.

The state of the tarmac may have played a role but your post contains two falsehoods: that Leclerc locked up and that his brakes were functioning entirely fine - both of those things are untrue.

Understeered on the loose tarmac, locked front left and hit the wall. No smoke because he is sliding on the loose tarmac and has no contact with the road.

To be completely fair, understeer from the tarmac alone was going to put Leclerc in the wall and he cannot be blamed for the track falling apart. No one seemed to pick up the cause of Stroll crashing earlier until the second crash.

Brakes being bad doesn't mean they put him in the wall, there is no evidence for any failure.

[PlatinumZealot]

The snapshots that Raliegh posted does indedd show a locked wheel. The left front tyre is in the same exact rotation position after many frames.

Likely cold tyres on lose material underneath. This crash was touted as a rear brake issue though, so there is some nuance to it.