2026 Scuderia Ferrari HP F1 Team

[PlatinumZealot]

Is anyone counting the mechanical DNFs?

[AR3-GP]

Yeah these forums are a bit diluted sadly.
I was surprised about that soft pace too, my solution is that he had to push immediately, and because of that or simply of the car, they just got overheated quickly. Then because he had to defend, had no time to cool them, so it stayed that way till the end. It must have been an other feat to keep that place for him.

"today it wasn’t about problems with the balance or the tyre itself: there was something on the car that prevented me from pushing as I would have liked.

https://scuderiafans.com/charles-lecler ... e-mystery/

“Ferrari fourth force? I don’t think so. Yesterday in qualifying there was a little more potential and, once again, on my side we have an ADUO 1 engine. The car was good this weekend, but it is what it is. I can only blame myself and we’ll try to get back towards the front in the next races. What is certain is that it’s super tight. They did a better job than us this weekend.”

https://scuderiafans.com/charles-lecler ... e-mystery/


Another underperforming weekend.

[mzso]

Mate we went past this and everyone moved on. Noone is interested to hear about your hate passion.

I have none, but your BS is certainly not interesting to anyone.
It will be a sorry day when Leclerc starts waving by his teammate.

[Darth-Piekus]

I have none, but your BS is certainly not interesting to anyone.
It will be a sorry day when Leclerc starts waving by his teammate.

Instead of bothering if Lewis is rent free in your head you should be bothered that Ferrari has two good drivers but a circus of a team.

[AR3-GP]

In Madrid, Mercedes had tried its own interpretation of the FTM concept, intervening directly in the exhaust area of the W17. According to what AutoRacer has learned, the decision came after evaluating the overall balance of the solution, and a rather clear conclusion had filtered through from Mercedes: "The benefits guaranteed by the solution did not compensate for the loss of power related to the use of the fin". The mini-FTM actually added downforce, taking advantage of the interaction between the exhaust gases and the small profile — so it was not a component that didn't work, but a compromise that, on the track, didn't stand up to the overall balance. The advantage, in fact, had a contraindication that was anything but negligible: the solution ended up penalizing the use of the turbo, reducing the overall benefit obtainable from the Power Unit.

https://autoracer.it/mercedes-madrid-bo ... instabile/

Ferrari's power deficit is a mirage. They traded outright power for downforce.

For those who make simple (and wrong) mental calculations like this: "Ferrari would win every race with the Mercedes PU"....its been debunked by the Silver Arrows themselves.

[deadhead]

Is anyone counting the mechanical DNFs?

Hamilton has 1 mechanical DNF in 38 races for Scuderia Ferrari

[bluechris]

In Madrid, Mercedes had tried its own interpretation of the FTM concept, intervening directly in the exhaust area of the W17. According to what AutoRacer has learned, the decision came after evaluating the overall balance of the solution, and a rather clear conclusion had filtered through from Mercedes: "The benefits guaranteed by the solution did not compensate for the loss of power related to the use of the fin". The mini-FTM actually added downforce, taking advantage of the interaction between the exhaust gases and the small profile — so it was not a component that didn't work, but a compromise that, on the track, didn't stand up to the overall balance. The advantage, in fact, had a contraindication that was anything but negligible: the solution ended up penalizing the use of the turbo, reducing the overall benefit obtainable from the Power Unit.

https://autoracer.it/mercedes-madrid-bo ... instabile/

Ferrari's power deficit is a mirage. They traded outright power for downforce.

For those who make simple (and wrong) mental calculations like this: "Ferrari would win every race with the Mercedes PU"....its been debunked by the Silver Arrows themselves.

All of this continues because Toto said it. Ferrari did test without it with no much difference. The engine deficit is real in multiple fronts (ice, electrical, delivery etc).

[Emag]

In Madrid, Mercedes had tried its own interpretation of the FTM concept, intervening directly in the exhaust area of the W17. According to what AutoRacer has learned, the decision came after evaluating the overall balance of the solution, and a rather clear conclusion had filtered through from Mercedes: "The benefits guaranteed by the solution did not compensate for the loss of power related to the use of the fin". The mini-FTM actually added downforce, taking advantage of the interaction between the exhaust gases and the small profile — so it was not a component that didn't work, but a compromise that, on the track, didn't stand up to the overall balance. The advantage, in fact, had a contraindication that was anything but negligible: the solution ended up penalizing the use of the turbo, reducing the overall benefit obtainable from the Power Unit.

https://autoracer.it/mercedes-madrid-bo ... instabile/

Ferrari's power deficit is a mirage. They traded outright power for downforce.

For those who make simple (and wrong) mental calculations like this: "Ferrari would win every race with the Mercedes PU"....its been debunked by the Silver Arrows themselves.

Maybe the FTM costs some power, but except for that, where exactly do you see that the Ferrari PU trades power for downforce?

It is very unlikely Ferrari designed the car in a way where the power loss is bigger than the aero gain. They have their numbers. If it wasn't worth it, they wouldn't do it. Mercedes dropping theirs isn't proof of it not being beneficiary because Ferrari's implementation is way more tightly coupled with the chassis.

And you also have the ADUO result on top of that. FIA is not only measuring the works Ferrari. They are taking data from all Ferrari supplied PUs, which includes Cadillac and Haas. Cadillac does not run Ferrari's FTM setup (at the same level, although I am not sure if they had it at all before Austria), so if the engine itself was actually much stronger and Ferrari was only making it look weak through the exhaust concept, that should show up in the customer data as well. Now I know that we are not aware of how exactly does the FIA combines all of that data because the detailed ADUO methodology is confidential, but no matter how incompetent you think FIA are, they surely have some sort of policy implemented where they don't just willy-nilly give a power unit extra upgrade allowance if it was obviously compromised in some way in only one of the teams.

The PU disadvantage is definitely not a mirage. The FTM is responsible for some of it, but you would have to have extremely low standards for Ferrari engineers if you believe they willingly decided to go for a compromise that loses more laptime than it gains.

[AR3-GP]

Maybe the FTM costs some power, but except for that, where exactly do you see that the Ferrari PU trades power for downforce?

It is very unlikely Ferrari designed the car in a way where the power loss is bigger than the aero gain. They have their numbers. If it wasn't worth it, they wouldn't do it. Mercedes dropping theirs isn't proof of it not being beneficiary because Ferrari's implementation is way more tightly coupled with the chassis.

I don't think you've understood my post. My point is the FTM does cost power, and you need to recover a lot of downforce from it to justify the power loss. Ferrari have achieved it by mounting dracula to the rear end and developing the entire floor from the bib to the diffuser around it, but now it's creating the illusion that the PU by itself is no good. Like Toto said, if you go for that high downforce concept in an efficiency formula, there are drawbacks. Ferrari's lack of pace on the straights is not purely a PU deficit in like for like comparison. It goes hand in hand with the rest of the concept, trading some power for more downforce by strangling the exhaust outlet, and more downforce also causing higher energy consumption. Mercedes and the other teams can only offer a cheap imitation which is why it's not worth it for them compared to the power loss and turbo behaviour.

Put the PUs on a dyno without FTM with a larger tail pipe diameter as used by Mercedes and Red Bull (mass continuity increases the jet velocity with the small tailpipe which is why Ferrari has the smallest exhaust diameter) and you are going to get a completely different perspective on the Ferrari PU.

Many people don't seem to understand the connection between Ferrari's FTM, their aero concept, and the hysterical numbers that they present as Ferrari's PU deficit.

[K1Plus]

Maybe the FTM costs some power, but except for that, where exactly do you see that the Ferrari PU trades power for downforce?

It is very unlikely Ferrari designed the car in a way where the power loss is bigger than the aero gain. They have their numbers. If it wasn't worth it, they wouldn't do it. Mercedes dropping theirs isn't proof of it not being beneficiary because Ferrari's implementation is way more tightly coupled with the chassis.

I don't think you've understood my post. My point is the FTM does cost power, and you need to recover a lot of downforce from it to justify the power loss. Ferrari have achieved it by mounting dracula to the rear end and developing the entire floor from the bib to the diffuser around it, but now it's creating the illusion that the PU by itself is no good. Like Toto said, if you go for that high downforce concept in an efficiency formula, there are drawbacks. Ferrari's lack of pace on the straights is not purely a PU deficit in like for like comparison. It goes hand in hand with the rest of the concept, trading some power for more downforce by strangling the exhaust outlet, and more downforce also causing higher energy consumption. Mercedes and the other teams can only offer a cheap imitation which is why it's not worth it for them compared to the power loss and turbo behaviour.

Put the PUs on a dyno without FTM with a larger tail pipe diameter as used by Mercedes and Red Bull (mass continuity increases the jet velocity with the small tailpipe which is why Ferrari has the smallest exhaust diameter) and you are going to get a completely different perspective on the Ferrari PU.

Many people don't seem to understand the connection between Ferrari's FTM, their aero concept, and the hysterical numbers that they present as Ferrari's PU deficit.

So the deficit is not as big as thought? Will FTM ban set them back or do you think they can be competitive and
fight for wins NextYear (Trademark)?

[Emag]

Maybe the FTM costs some power, but except for that, where exactly do you see that the Ferrari PU trades power for downforce?

It is very unlikely Ferrari designed the car in a way where the power loss is bigger than the aero gain. They have their numbers. If it wasn't worth it, they wouldn't do it. Mercedes dropping theirs isn't proof of it not being beneficiary because Ferrari's implementation is way more tightly coupled with the chassis.

I don't think you've understood my post. My point is the FTM does cost power, and you need to recover a lot of downforce from it to justify the power loss. Ferrari have achieved it by mounting dracula to the rear end and developing the entire floor from the bib to the diffuser around it, but now it's creating the illusion that the PU by itself is no good. Like Toto said, if you go for that high downforce concept in an efficiency formula, there are drawbacks. Ferrari's lack of pace on the straights is not purely a PU deficit in like for like comparison. It goes hand in hand with the rest of the concept, trading some power for more downforce by strangling the exhaust outlet, and more downforce also causing higher energy consumption. Mercedes and the other teams can only offer a cheap imitation which is why it's not worth it for them compared to the power loss and turbo behaviour.

Put the PUs on a dyno without FTM with a larger tail pipe diameter as used by Mercedes and Red Bull (mass continuity increases the jet velocity with the small tailpipe which is why Ferrari has the smallest exhaust diameter) and you are going to get a completely different perspective on the Ferrari PU.

Many people don't seem to understand the connection between Ferrari's FTM, their aero concept, and the hysterical numbers that they present as Ferrari's PU deficit.

I understand the point about the FTM. I am not saying it costs zero power or that Ferrari's straight line deficit is purely down to the PU.

The problem is that this still doesn't explain the ADUO result. FIA isn't only looking at the works Ferrari. It monitors the Ferrari PUs supplied to the customer teams as well. Cadillac did not have Ferrari's FTM concept for the first ADUO measurements period and it certainly doesn't have the complex rear-end Ferrari designed around it, so if most of Ferrari's apparent ICE deficit was simply the works car strangling the exhaust for an aero gain, you would expect that to be exposed from customer data.

And the ADUO result put Ferrari more than 4% behind the ICE benchmark. Even using a very conservative 500 hp ICE figure, 4% is already around 20 hp. Go further into that range and you're talking about a pretty substantial amount of power.

I agree that the 40-45 hp claims being thrown around are probably exaggerated, and the FTM explains part of the difference on the works car. But I don't see how you can go from that to saying the PU deficit is basically a mirage. There almost certainly a genuine power deficit underneath it as well.

The fact that they're completely redesigning the PU for next year is telling as well. What they have right now is not a good design. They got it wrong.

[AR3-GP]

The problem is that this still doesn't explain the ADUO result. FIA isn't only looking at the works Ferrari. It monitors the Ferrari PUs supplied to the customer teams as well. Cadillac did not have Ferrari's FTM concept for the first ADUO measurements period and it certainly doesn't have the complex rear-end Ferrari designed around it, so if most of Ferrari's apparent ICE deficit was simply the works car strangling the exhaust for an aero gain, you would expect that to be exposed from customer data.

Ferrari have the smallest exhaust diameter of any PU manufacturer. I made a post about it during the pre-season. It was designed to increase the exhaust gas velocity to power up the FTM even more, at the expense of power. Every Ferrari customer has the same parts, which means they are all saddled with the compromises of the FTM design of the factory team, even when they don't have FTM. Like I said, the other manufacturers are running a cheap imitation of a system which Ferrari invested resources to integrate into the entire design of the car from aero to PU.

Furthermore, the Cadillac is not an actual F1 car. They wouldn't have been able to exploit the maximum power (probably slightly more than Ferrari) because their cooling systems don't allow them to. This detail also affected Alpine at the start of the year. and we know the Ferrari PU seems to expel a lot of heat, because even Ferrari themselves tend to have the most open cooling exits and they were crippled by cooling issues in Austria (a factor which ADUO does not take into consideration), and affecting them to a lesser extent in the other hotter races this year. There are many circumstantial and environmental factors which are misleading the ADUO. The only manufacturer that needed it was Honda, if it were to be anyone, and certainly not Mercedes. Th ADUO is an ill-posed question. It's not fit for purpose.

The fact that they're completely redesigning the PU for next year is telling as well. What they have right now is not a good design. They got it wrong.

but of course, when the turbo and the exhaust system is small so that you can feed the FTM with a high exhaust gas velocity, then you will design something completely different when the FTM is banned.

What Binotto said some months ago actually made the most sense. Link both the PU and the aero to the WCC. Then you simply have a system that allows slower teams to become faster at a greater rate than the faster teams. I dislike all of the BOP stuff, but if anything should apply, it should work in this way. Right now, they managed to concoct a BOP system that will help the fastest team (considering they win with a 4 month outdated car) to become even faster.

[Emag]

* cut for better visibility

Well, if your argument is that Ferrari designed the entire PU around feeding the FTM, with a smaller turbo/exhaust system that inherently sacrifices power across all customers, then that doesn't really contradict the claim that the PU is underpowered. It just explains why it is underpowered.

If the current Ferrari PU is fundamentally designed around those compromises (which I don't know if it is, I don't understand much about power units, I am taking your word for it), then surely that means that you can't simply remove the FTM and assume another 20-30 hp suddenly appears.

Whether it comes from the combustion side, turbo sizing, exhaust restriction or the overall FTM integration, the end result is still that the current Ferrari PU package doesn't produce enough power for them to compete with the best.

Edit: Also, what kind of calculation were they doing at Maranello to decide to cripple the engine on a PU-dominated formula for aero gains on a car which is now slower than McLaren on the corners?

[deadhead]

September 2022, President John Elkann:

"I am confident that by 2026 Ferrari will return to winning a Constructors' World Championship and a Drivers' World Championship. We will achieve it before the 20-year drought, given that our last Drivers' World Championship dates back to 2007 and the Constructors' to 2008."

Tall order. Maybe 2027!

[AR3-GP]

* cut for better visibility

If the current Ferrari PU is fundamentally designed around those compromises (which I don't know if it is, I don't understand much about power units, I am taking your word for it), then surely that means that you can't simply remove the FTM and assume another 20-30 hp suddenly appears.

Removing the FTM alone recovers a meaningful amount of power. Increasing the exhaust pipe diameter (and some tuning) recovers more of the power. Redesigning the PU produces another dimension entirely, but of course the others are free to do the same.

The point is people are making this simple minded 1:1 equation of Ferrari missing a hysterical amount of power, and "would be winning if it weren't for those meddling silvers" or if they just had a Mercedes PU. But it doesn't consider the influence of the FTM rabbit hole that Ferrari have on the PU. The Mercedes PU would not make Mercedes levels of power in the back of the Ferrari. Mercedes themselves couldn't get their PU to work properly when they tried to run a slightly more aggressive FTM (viewtopic.php?p=1356735#p1356735). The dropped the winglet after FP2 in madrdid. Red Bull also gave more proof that this FTM cost too much power because they chose to remove it for Monza:


Whatever 4%+ PU deficit that is claimed to be measured is including all of the power sucking integration of the FTM (small exhaust pipe, dracula winglet at the end, and whatever they did to the turbo to make sure the exhaust jet is high velocity). So this automatically corrupted the ADUO measurement system because it allowed Ferrari to pursue other objectives at the expense of outright power and then be rewarded a second time by excessive development credits. It's an illusion. An ADUO system that simply measures power would never work without considering that not every manufacturer was motivated to produce maximum power, or elected to increase their cooling to run more power consistently, or some other compromise in the turbo that allowed better electric charging at the expense of peak power.

When the manufacturers agreed to this system, no one had any idea that Ferrari was working on an FTM. So they didn't agree to this ADUO in good faith. It was a bad faith agreement. It's obvious now that the FIA simply don't have the expertise to understand the complex ways by which the current ADUO system would lead to the wrong outcomes. I know they claim "we would have liked to add more", but it still wouldn't have been enough. The teams are too clever. FTM is a blind spot of ADUO. They also haven't considered how the fine detail of controlling a PU that must charge a battery and having to cool a PU which produces slightly more power, could lead to deliberate 1-2% tradeoffs in favor of aero or battery charging. The biggest issue now is you can keep your deliberate ICE deficit and invest the ADUO in the hybrid system or drivability.