2025 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team

[SoulPancake13]

I am just not convinced the car was raised for plank wear concerns. The team knew it would be a wet weather race... you don't strike kerbs, the wet tyres sit higher than the slicks, and Melbourne is a very smooth circuit. I personally don't see it adding up.

[CjC]

Throw this into your mixer Ferrari fans.
2013, McLaren switch from push rod to pull rod suspension and looked rather good in testing. Come the first race and they were pretty terrible (and was all season).

What happened Jenson?
‘We fitted a suspension component the wrong way round in testing so the car ran lower, giving more downforce but it would have worn the plank away and made the car illegal during the race’.

Anybody else seeing similar comparisons?

[SoulPancake13]

Throw this into your mixer Ferrari fans.
2013, McLaren switch from push rod to pull rod suspension and looked rather good in testing. Come the first race and they were pretty terrible (and was all season).

What happened Jenson?
‘We fitted a suspension component the wrong way round in testing so the car ran lower, giving more downforce but it would have worn the plank away and made the car illegal during the race’.

Anybody else seeing similar comparisons?

I find this hard to believe, the alarm bells would have been a lot louder in this case. It also doesn't really fit what little has come out about the setup change. In this formula, "sacrificing performance" as Charles said is pretty much deliberately raising the floor. Why they did that is the question - whether it was bouncing(I personally didn't see any), plank wear, or something else.

[ScuderiaLeo]

The significant drop-off in pace in medium speed corners essentially confirms they had to raise the car.

I wonder by how much they raised it; the dropoff suggests they had to raise it a lot. Alternatively, maybe they only raised it by a couple mm, but this drastically impacted the operating window.

Both options have bad implications.

If they only barely raised it and it caused such a massive performance loss, that speaks poorly about the car's operating window. Might have a similar problem to the Barcelona package where the car has "pace" but its other issues are so large the drivers can't take advantage of it.

If they raised it a lot and the performance loss is proportional, the question is why did they do it? What is the underlying cause? There would have to be a bigger reason.

For better or worse, we'll have a decent idea of the performance earlier in the weekend because of the sprint. But even if we do really well this weekend (unlikely considering Ferrari's record here, like Seanspeed said) I wouldn't trust it. We don't only need pace, we need consistency.

[catent]

Throw this into your mixer Ferrari fans.
2013, McLaren switch from push rod to pull rod suspension and looked rather good in testing. Come the first race and they were pretty terrible (and was all season).

What happened Jenson?
‘We fitted a suspension component the wrong way round in testing so the car ran lower, giving more downforce but it would have worn the plank away and made the car illegal during the race’.

Anybody else seeing similar comparisons?

It seems this example was the result of a simple error rather than deliberate setup decision.

A component wasn't properly installed, the car ran lower and provided more downforce than it would've if said component was properly installed. Once they realized their error and properly installed the suspension component, the car ran higher.

I get the sense Ferrari made a deliberate setup choice, rather than discovering something was improperly installed.

It would be quite unfortunate and ironic if Ferrari have designed a car with some fundamental suspension flaw/limitation, given the brand new TD is an expert in suspension.

I'm not saying it's impossible but I'm not sure it's likely.

[Fluido]

How many of you think Lewis will beat Lecler this year?

[Autobahn303]

How many of you think Lewis will beat Lecler this year?

Can we please avoid that topic? Otherwise this thread will turn into cancer.

I got PTSD from all the endless Leclerc vs Sainz discussions.

[Farnborough]

Throw this into your mixer Ferrari fans.
2013, McLaren switch from push rod to pull rod suspension and looked rather good in testing. Come the first race and they were pretty terrible (and was all season).

What happened Jenson?
‘We fitted a suspension component the wrong way round in testing so the car ran lower, giving more downforce but it would have worn the plank away and made the car illegal during the race’.

Anybody else seeing similar comparisons?

It seems this example was the result of a simple error rather than deliberate setup decision.

A component wasn't properly installed, the car ran lower and provided more downforce than it would've if said component was properly installed. Once they realized their error and properly installed the suspension component, the car ran higher.

I get the sense Ferrari made a deliberate setup choice, rather than discovering something was improperly installed.

It would be quite unfortunate and ironic if Ferrari have designed a car with some fundamental suspension flaw/limitation, given the brand new TD is an expert in suspension.

I'm not saying it's impossible but I'm not sure it's likely.

I'm skeptical too. Whichever way up the suspension activatis designed pull/push etc, ride height is ride height.

Usually that's going to be set, concisely, by the mechanics in build process for each and every race. Those images of chassis in box jacked up, no wheels, hard gauges bolted to them are for exactly this purpose. They are reference and datum "instruments " to precisely set whatever is demanded of the spec for that event.

Theres very detailed shim stack etc to facilitate this in suspension activating links to tailor each wheel assembly in spite of any production tolerance and pickup location repeatability.

There may be something in it being lifted, but not a mistake in ride height component per sa.

[Macklaren]

Throw this into your mixer Ferrari fans.
2013, McLaren switch from push rod to pull rod suspension and looked rather good in testing. Come the first race and they were pretty terrible (and was all season).

What happened Jenson?
‘We fitted a suspension component the wrong way round in testing so the car ran lower, giving more downforce but it would have worn the plank away and made the car illegal during the race’.

Anybody else seeing similar comparisons?

It seems this example was the result of a simple error rather than deliberate setup decision.

A component wasn't properly installed, the car ran lower and provided more downforce than it would've if said component was properly installed. Once they realized their error and properly installed the suspension component, the car ran higher.

I get the sense Ferrari made a deliberate setup choice, rather than discovering something was improperly installed.

It would be quite unfortunate and ironic if Ferrari have designed a car with some fundamental suspension flaw/limitation, given the brand new TD is an expert in suspension.

I'm not saying it's impossible but I'm not sure it's likely.

I'm skeptical too. Whichever way up the suspension activatis designed pull/push etc, ride height is ride height.

Usually that's going to be set, concisely, by the mechanics in build process for each and every race. Those images of chassis in box jacked up, no wheels, hard gauges bolted to them are for exactly this purpose. They are reference and datum "instruments " to precisely set whatever is demanded of the spec for that event.

Theres very detailed shim stack etc to facilitate this in suspension activating links to tailor each wheel assembly in spite of any production tolerance and pickup location repeatability.

There may be something in it being lifted, but not a mistake in ride height component per sa.

I don't know how much time you guys spend over in the McLaren forum but this incident is legendary as an example of how much McLaren lost their way. No chance it was repeated

[Farnborough]

I'd not doubt and didn't contest that event in another team.

Much more that with no commonality, apart from the description of "push to pull" in changing things, the two events really don't share anything in tbe way of application between the two "incident "

There's literally nothing to connect these two, except perhaps sentiment.