2026 Scuderia Ferrari HP F1 Team

[amr]

I'd love for someone to clarify this but I would assume ADUO is not determined according to race results but by dynoing the engine (ICE). Otherwise you could end up giving more engine development time to the engine that is already the strongest (if their chassis is bad).

We would all love to know, but it is not for our eyes.
The technical regulation specifies:
"For each ICE supplied by the PU Manufacturers, an average power will be calculated. The methodology to calculate this power can be found in the document FIA-F1-DOC-Cxxx."

Unless a PU manufacturer leaks this, I don't think we will know.

[FDD]

Telemetry feed was so poor this weekend, but this is 4 laps of Leclerc on 20L-old mediums vs. Russell on basically fresh hards.

Faster in all high speed corners on ~20 laps older tires.
Gained 1s only over 32 laps on Russell, despite 13-laps fresher tires.

The "magic" of the Mercedes "deployment" lol

https://i.imgur.com/H543MGJ.png

Sorry but this telemetry does not prove anything about your argument.
In fact you provide zero proof of your idea that it is not the recovery/deployment where they are doing well.
Yet Mclaren people said their car is not that slower and the engine shall be the same, hence what is left is the software and its settings.
And again: try think more long term and see the bigger picture: This was the very first race with this huge rule change.
The biggest unknown and variable in this rule change is how you use your hardware, namely software. You think there could not be 1% to be gained for other teams there???
I develop software, as well as some electric hardware, trust me, there can be way more to gain still than 1% overall by doing this side better. Merc probably is ahead in this, but clever engineers looking at good telemetry will be able to figure out in 1-2 months a lot and provide software that is a lot closer in performance.
IF nothing changes in like 3 months, then maybe their engine provides those extra horsepower, let's see.

If they really have advantage of the compression ratio, the question is what that means in kW/HP.
If they have some extra power 10-20 HP (provisional number) then they use this extra power for recharging only maybe, was your point in the last sentence, I hope.
In that case we have to wait the new method/rule for CR measurement.
Yes, I agree (not an expert) that software has big impact on how hardware is used.
So as You said software optimization is must, just sit and wait...

[catent]

Goodness, despite being on 14 older tires, Andrea Antonelli increased his gap over Leclerc. Mercedes is head and shoulders ahead with their "suspicious" engine.

Vasseur said the real gap to MB was 0.5s, which is realistic. Melbourne was the second worst track of the calendar for Ferrari engine, which looks to be the worsr (outside Honda) in recharging through super clipping (which was crucial in this track).

I don't think we can conclude Ferrari's PU is one of the worst at regeneration during superclipping.

Let them optimize the many variables involved with energy regeneration and deployment before we reach any ultimate conclusions about the characteristics and qualities of the respective PUs.

[AR3-GP]

Recharge through superclipping is trivial. ICE generates 400kW. Superclipping harvest at 250kW. There's nothing special about it. It gets activated and it gets done. It happens at high speed where the hp difference between the different combustion engines doesn't make a big difference in top speed.

[f1Follower]

The easiest way for the FIA was to generate from the front axle. Currently the brakes from rear wheels are used to harvest. This is really a big screw ups from FIA. Audi and Ferrari were for this as they are using the same in WEC however most likely vetoed by MB

[upsidedowntoast]

The easiest way for the FIA was to generate from the front axle. Currently the brakes from rear wheels are used to harvest. This is really a big screw ups from FIA. Audi and Ferrari were for this as they are using the same in WEC however most likely vetoed by MB

Front axle got vetoed by Merc, MGUH got vetoed by Audi. Either would have prevented all these issues.

IMO they should have just made MGUH a spec part if they were really concerned about cost. I was for front axle regen at first but apparently there was a reason why that wasn't allowed before: https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/easy ... ompletely/ (TLDR opens up too many avenues for steering/stability assist for drivers). In theory they can probably make regs to prevent this, in practice there is no way the FIA has enough skilled engineers and lawyers to outsmart the teams.

[bananapeel23]

The easiest way for the FIA was to generate from the front axle. Currently the brakes from rear wheels are used to harvest. This is really a big screw ups from FIA. Audi and Ferrari were for this as they are using the same in WEC however most likely vetoed by MB

The easiest way was keeping the MGU-H, which would immediately eliminate 2/3 of the super clipping/LiCo at the worst tracks, and all of it at most of them. Front axle regen would be similarly effective, but the teams obviously lack experience with them.

In reality they should have had both.

[motobaleno]

The easiest way for the FIA was to generate from the front axle. Currently the brakes from rear wheels are used to harvest. This is really a big screw ups from FIA. Audi and Ferrari were for this as they are using the same in WEC however most likely vetoed by MB

Front axle got vetoed by Merc, MGUH got vetoed by Audi. Either would have prevented all these issues.

IMO they should have just made MGUH a spec part if they were really concerned about cost. I was for front axle regen at first but apparently there was a reason why that wasn't allowed before: https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/easy ... ompletely/ (TLDR opens up too many avenues for steering/stability assist for drivers). In theory they can probably make regs to prevent this, in practice there is no way the FIA has enough skilled engineers and lawyers to outsmart the teams.

I don't buy this explanation by the race...of course it is a question but there are many answers all allowing to have front regen and preserving drivers skills. Incidentally, in motoGP they have full and ultra advanced (specific corner based) traction control and the best drivers skills remain untouched...

[upsidedowntoast]

The easiest way for the FIA was to generate from the front axle. Currently the brakes from rear wheels are used to harvest. This is really a big screw ups from FIA. Audi and Ferrari were for this as they are using the same in WEC however most likely vetoed by MB

Front axle got vetoed by Merc, MGUH got vetoed by Audi. Either would have prevented all these issues.

IMO they should have just made MGUH a spec part if they were really concerned about cost. I was for front axle regen at first but apparently there was a reason why that wasn't allowed before: https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/easy ... ompletely/ (TLDR opens up too many avenues for steering/stability assist for drivers). In theory they can probably make regs to prevent this, in practice there is no way the FIA has enough skilled engineers and lawyers to outsmart the teams.

I don't buy this explanation by the race...of course it is a question but there are many answers all allowing to have front regen and preserving drivers skills. Incidentally, in motoGP they have full and ultra advanced (specific corner based) traction control and the best drivers skills remain untouched...

Motorcycle racing is fundamentally more human-centric than car racing though: you've only got two wheels that you have to balance on. MotoGP is 80% driver and 20% vehicle, so extra control, even if it's very advanced, still maintains the gap with the top drivers.

Whereas F1 in its current form is 20% driver and 80% vehicle already, so adding even more assists would further narrow an already narrow gap.

But maybe I'm wrong and front axle regen won't be such a huge deal as that article is making it out to be.

[catent]

I'm totally speculating, but is it true that the front-axle veto by Merc lends more credence to the notion that their advantage is coming primarily via clever energy recovery/deployment?

[upsidedowntoast]

I'm totally speculating, but is it true that the front-axle veto by Merc lends more credence to the notion that their advantage is coming primarily via clever energy recovery/deployment?

Nah, they just knew Audi and Ferrari have more experience than they do with front axle regen due to their WEC participation.

No one knows at this point what their real advantage is; I suspect the truth is that they actually just have many small advantages spread out over a very complete and integrated package that compound.

[f1Follower]

The easiest way for the FIA was to generate from the front axle. Currently the brakes from rear wheels are used to harvest. This is really a big screw ups from FIA. Audi and Ferrari were for this as they are using the same in WEC however most likely vetoed by MB

Front axle got vetoed by Merc, MGUH got vetoed by Audi. Either would have prevented all these issues.

IMO they should have just made MGUH a spec part if they were really concerned about cost. I was for front axle regen at first but apparently there was a reason why that wasn't allowed before: https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/easy ... ompletely/ (TLDR opens up too many avenues for steering/stability assist for drivers). In theory they can probably make regs to prevent this, in practice there is no way the FIA has enough skilled engineers and lawyers to outsmart the teams.

To some extent I agree with incoming engine manufacturers. MGU-H was never in the normal cars or super cars or hyper cars. The technology is very expensive for even hyper cars. The investment in sport should render some output which should help in long term.

There is already a series of cars with pure electric Formula E and as the battery technologies improves in some time they will be as powerful or even more powerful than the ICE engines. (They can even employ the recharging which is comparatively safer with no liquid fuel direct electricity for the batteries).

The other aspect was for efuel which is done however they should have allowed for more ways to harvest the energy. This would have ensured that there was less clipping effect especially in energy intensive circuits like Monza and Australia.

[CouncilorIrissa]

Apparently, the RW they showcased in testing is being shipped to China.
https://autoracer-it.translate.goog/fer ... r_pto=wapp

[IntrinsicVoid]

Apparently, the RW they showcased in testing is being shipped to China.
https://autoracer-it.translate.goog/fer ... r_pto=wapp

Quite aggressive, they ran it shortly in Bahrain testing and considering China is sprint weekend it's short time for the practice. Lets hope it helps.

[Xyz22]

Apparently, the RW they showcased in testing is being shipped to China.
https://autoracer-it.translate.goog/fer ... r_pto=wapp

Yep. In testing they saw the huge advantage and everything worked as expected if they are able to fast forward it for China. The original plan was Montreal according to Autoracer.
This wing is a crucial piece of the puzzle for Ferrari.