2026 Scuderia Ferrari HP F1 Team

[bluechris]

Noone can be certain of the amount of power they can gain. I will never believe that Ferrari is losing 30hp from the FTM and the exhaust diameter. Except if somehow they became Lada. Also both championships are lost, there isn't a single point now to do anything except to optimize it a bit. The mistake happened in the previous years. A new complete engine is needed.

[deadhead]

A new complete engine is needed.

That’s happening for sure. No way to know if it will be competitive or not. Technically they will be behind if it’s a brand new concept.

Big question on how their car will behave without the extra downforce from the FTM they are getting currently. The rest of the teams have been operating their cars without one for a year, so in a sense, they will be behind that development path as well.

[PlatinumZealot]

FTM is not a big loss to the engine or else they would not do it.

[djones]

FTM is not a big loss to the engine or else they would not do it.

It could lose 20, 50 or even 100 bhp and the power number does not really matter, its lap time.

If they think it gains them .4 seconds a lap in aero but loses them .2 a lap in engine power its still worth doing, regardless of the actual power lost.

[AR3-GP]

Red Bull and Ferrari spend similar amounts of time on the straights. Much closer to each other than either of them to Mercedes. This is before taking into account the power loss from Ferrari's FTM. Most of the data included in this average does not include Ferrari's ADUO 2 PU. So they are likely matching the ADUO-less RBPT now for total PU performance. That's the first myth gone about what people think the gap between Ferrari and RBPT is.

[mzso]

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.

That's just Ferrari. The only exception is the Todt era. I don't expect anything else from them.
Maybe Marchionne could have pulled the team together and kept it focused, but that was not meant to be.

Barring doing the same, hiring someone like Todt who can successfully pull in all the necessary technical leaders as well, nothing will change.

[Darth-Piekus]

Finally we are getting somewhere.

[mzso]

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!

They seem to be moving backwards. Gained a lot with McLaren's and Red Bull's issues. It already feels like they're going to hover around the 3-4th power for the rest of the regulation, as usual for Ferrari. McLaren seems clearly in front now.

[Emag]

Red Bull and Ferrari spend similar amounts of time on the straights. Much closer to each other than either of them to Mercedes. This is before taking into account the power loss from Ferrari's FTM. Most of the data included in this average does not include Ferrari's ADUO 2 PU. So they are likely matching the ADUO-less RBPT now for total PU performance. That's the first myth gone about what people think the gap between Ferrari and RBPT is.

https://i.postimg.cc/V6Z0TkV0/image.png

Any more details about the source of this? Are they being selective about the straights, or are they aggregating between all full throttle zones in a track? If yes, what kind of aggregation?

If you look at a pre-aduo Ferrari engine, let's say, Austria qualifying which would demonstrate their weakness the most considering their compromises, the Ferrari PU was an absolute joke :



Even a race later at Silverstone, it doesn't really look any better :

[sucof]

Is anyone counting the mechanical DNFs?

Hamilton has 1 mechanical DNF in 38 races for Scuderia Ferrari

Wasn't his DNF because he hit the wall a few laps before???
With the rear tyres he had a contact, as he reported on the radio, then developed a rear brake failure...

[AR3-GP]

Red Bull and Ferrari spend similar amounts of time on the straights. Much closer to each other than either of them to Mercedes. This is before taking into account the power loss from Ferrari's FTM. Most of the data included in this average does not include Ferrari's ADUO 2 PU. So they are likely matching the ADUO-less RBPT now for total PU performance. That's the first myth gone about what people think the gap between Ferrari and RBPT is.

https://i.postimg.cc/V6Z0TkV0/image.png

Any more details about the source of this? Are they being selective about the straights, or are they aggregating between all full throttle zones in a track? If yes, what kind of aggregation?

If you look at a pre-aduo Ferrari engine, let's say, Austria qualifying which would demonstrate their weakness the most considering their compromises, the Ferrari PU was an absolute joke :

https://i.postimg.cc/5N7RyvkL/image.png

Even a race later at Silverstone, it doesn't really look any better :

https://i.postimg.cc/50swg5zG/image.png

Two points:

1) Austria is a high-altitude outlier. The data is averaged from Rd4 to Rd13. With such a massive data set (Rd4 to Rd13), the average is much more representative than the outlier. Ferrari experienced a circuit specific PU degradation in Austria related to smaller turbo and high altitude.

2) You're showing plots that illustrate top speed, not "time on straight". Top speed can be completely uncorrelated with power in this ruleset (that's why Haas and Cadillac are always randomly at the top of the speed traps despite 3rd best PU). Any team can delay the deployment to the end of the straight to get a higher top speed at the expense of worse acceleration. Weak cars like Haas and Cadillac don't have the grip to use full 1000hp from low speed, so they are more likely to defer some of the electrical deployment to higher speed range where it can be used (but at a lower efficiency) instead of just generating wheel spin at low speed which is 100% energy loss. Time on straight is a far more accurate metric when comparing PUs and there is a reason why the Mercedes powered teams are clustering at the top, followed by RBPT, followed closely by pre-ADUO Ferrari. Because that's the actual PU pecking order and not even the variance of aero drag on each car wasn't even enough shuffle any of the Merc teams off the "podium".

The nice thing about a time on straight analysis is that it completely removes the straight specific deployment differences because time on straight is a cumulative property. By the end of the lap, everyone has used all of the energy allowed across all of straights. Deployment differences are effectively normalized.

[sucof]

Red Bull and Ferrari spend similar amounts of time on the straights. Much closer to each other than either of them to Mercedes. This is before taking into account the power loss from Ferrari's FTM. Most of the data included in this average does not include Ferrari's ADUO 2 PU. So they are likely matching the ADUO-less RBPT now for total PU performance. That's the first myth gone about what people think the gap between Ferrari and RBPT is.

https://i.postimg.cc/V6Z0TkV0/image.png

Any more details about the source of this? Are they being selective about the straights, or are they aggregating between all full throttle zones in a track? If yes, what kind of aggregation?

If you look at a pre-aduo Ferrari engine, let's say, Austria qualifying which would demonstrate their weakness the most considering their compromises, the Ferrari PU was an absolute joke :

https://i.postimg.cc/5N7RyvkL/image.png

Even a race later at Silverstone, it doesn't really look any better :

https://i.postimg.cc/50swg5zG/image.png

Some try to say on this forum that Ferrari is slower on the straights because they went for more downforce.
Now this is complete BS, as you can see in every telemetry, they do not have nowhere near as much speed benefit in the corners or under breaking as they loose on the straights. So this is just debunked.
Just as their new engine debunks this too, since you can clearly see their difference in straights are a lot less, sometimes halved, while the cornering speeds are still unchanged, similar to other top speeds.

Sadly I see some people are over active in these forums, thinking they need to tell everyone a 100 times "their truth" or beliefs, as this is probably their passion.
This makes this forum a lot less fun.

[AR3-GP]

Sadly I see some people are over active in these forums, thinking they need to tell everyone a 100 times "their truth" or beliefs, as this is probably their passion.
This makes this forum a lot less fun.

It's not fun when people don't report facts, like you've done here:
https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewt ... 1#p1356681

to which I addressed here:
https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewt ... 8#p1356698

[AR3-GP]

Some try to say on this forum that Ferrari is slower on the straights because they went for more downforce.
Now this is complete BS, as you can see in every telemetry, they do not have nowhere near as much speed benefit in the corners or under breaking as they loose on the straights. So this is just debunked.
Just as their new engine debunks this too, since you can clearly see their difference in straights are a lot less, sometimes halved, while the cornering speeds are still unchanged, similar to other top speeds.

One of these has nothing to do with the other. Just because they have extra downforce, doesn't mean that they've done enough with it to bridge the PU gap to Mercedes. I didn't say that was the case. They have just extracted more from it than others and the straight-line loss was made up for compared to an SF26 without FTM, otherwise it wouldn't be on the car. That's why Mercedes removed their own in Madrid and that's why Red Bull removed there's in Monza.

Ferrari's straight-line deficit is not all because of aero/FTM. Only some of it is and that is my point. Many have attributed the gap entirely to the PU and brought hysterical numbers to this thread. The current ADUO 2 spec is probably as effective as the RBPT as an overall PU when you look at time on straight analysis of the pre-ADUO PU and the stated gains of the ADUO 2 engine. They still have a gap to Mercedes, like everyone else. Some of it caused by the aero/FTM concept, and the rest by the PU not being good enough.

[Emag]

Two points:

1) Austria is a high-altitude outlier. The data is averaged from Rd4 to Rd13. With such a massive data set (Rd4 to Rd13), the average is much more representative than the outlier. Ferrari experienced a circuit specific PU degradation in Austria related to smaller turbo and high altitude.

2) You're showing plots that illustrate top speed, not "time on straight". Top speed can be completely uncorrelated with power in this ruleset (that's why Haas and Cadillac are always randomly at the top of the speed traps despite 3rd best PU). Any team can delay the deployment to the end of the straight to get a higher top speed at the expense of worse acceleration. Weak cars like Haas and Cadillac don't have the grip to use full 1000hp from low speed, so they are more likely to defer some of the electrical deployment to higher speed range where it can be used (but at a lower efficiency) instead of just generating wheel spin at low speed which is 100% energy loss. Time on straight is a far more accurate metric when comparing PUs and there is a reason why the Mercedes powered teams are clustering at the top, followed by RBPT, followed closely by pre-ADUO Ferrari. Because that's the actual PU pecking order.

The nice thing about a time on straight analysis is that it completely removes the straight specific deployment differences because time on straight is a cumulative property. By the end of the lap, everyone has used all of the energy allowed across all of straights. Deployment differences are effectively normalized.

1. I picked Austria because its a type of track that would really punish a weak PU. But in Silverstone as well, Ferrari were struggling in the straights. They just came up with a very good deployment strategy that negated some of that. Mercedes copied it, RedBull did not, so it's hard to directly compare.

2. A little bit more to unpack here.

Firstly, I wasn't looking at the top speeds. I guess it's fairly easy to see that the Ferrari line is lower than the others (when they follow a similar deployment strategy) across the entire straight and not just at the top end. There is no way for the average to turn out higher when you're slower all the way through.

Secondly, any team can do what you say with regards to deployment, but they would be stupid to do so because the fastest way through the straights, 99/100, will be to deploy as much as you can early on to boost acceleration rather than wait to build up speed and then accelerate to a higher top speed. So there's no reason for any team not to deploy at the beginning of the straights. Even the worse cars that you mentioned, would only be slightly limited at the beginning of the traction zone. As soon as they're through the corner, even if they're not full throttle, it doesn't make sense to delay deployment, because they would be losing even more time. Bad exit from bad traction + on top of that you want to delay deployment as well? Disaster for laptime. And it's mostly true this season where they have limited deployment available and it's very common for them to run out of battery between straights. You can think about it intuitively as well. If you add 20 kmh at the beginning of the straight, you benefit from that all the way through the straight. If you add it in the middle or towards the end, you don't benefit that much from it before you start breaking.

Thirdly, can you please link the source. I need to know more about the methodology to make a proper comment on those numbers. Do they (the person who did this) explain how they got the numbers? What is considered a straight? At which point do they start to count the time and when do they end it? Is there any aggregation going on and if yes what kind?

Now coincidentally, I was working on something like this for f1insightshub. I haven't made it public yet, so I had to spin up the local server to get the charts, but they're completely different from what you've shown here. You can see my methodology down there at the bottom.