2025 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team

[Luscion]

As mentioned in the live yesterday, the very first updates on the #Ferrari SF-25 are not primarily related to the problems found on the car, but clearly start from further back (late January deliberation). The plan under “normal conditions” includes an 'introduction of the first package at Round4 (Bah). In parallel, the development of the SF-25 must go on while trying to widen the car's window. The two cannot be ruled out that they may collide and be functional for each other.

[Seanspeed]

McLaren had a similar issue at the start of the last season and don't forguet the have the same front suspension.

Mclaren had been on a very clear upward trajectory in 2023, making big strides in-season. The base 2024 car wasn't a big leap forward, but remember they were still only JUST behind Ferrari in reality, and in fact were even faster than Ferrari in China before their big Miami update which propelled them to the top. They were hardly having 'issues', they simply took extra time on what was clearly their main plan for 2024.

They've shown that they have not just good understanding of what it takes to make these regs work, but the confidence in their engineering and design teams to put that knowledge into application.

Can y'all please stop making me compliment Mclaren so much now? lol It feels dirty. But I also see no point in denying reality. They're setting a high bar, and Ferrari have clearly not yet shown they are up to matching it.

[Farnborough]

McLaren had a similar issue at the start of the last season and don't forguet the have the same front suspension.

Mclaren had been on a very clear upward trajectory in 2023, making big strides in-season. The base 2024 car wasn't a big leap forward, but remember they were still only JUST behind Ferrari in reality, and in fact were even faster than Ferrari in China before their big Miami update which propelled them to the top. They were hardly having 'issues', they simply took extra time on what was clearly their main plan for 2024.

They've shown that they have not just good understanding of what it takes to make these regs work, but the confidence in their engineering and design teams to put that knowledge into application.

Can y'all please stop making me compliment Mclaren so much now? lol It feels dirty. But I also see no point in denying reality. They're setting a high bar, and Ferrari have clearly not yet shown they are up to matching it.

Certainly I've had in my mind more credit for them in development abilities, that's going on them sorting out where they went wrong last year. It is looking a little shaky though, but hopefully they do understand what is bringing these limits to appraise and respond to them.

That WDC position is looking sketchy though.

[Sergej]

As mentioned in the live yesterday, the very first updates on the #Ferrari SF-25 are not primarily related to the problems found on the car, but clearly start from further back (late January deliberation). The plan under “normal conditions” includes an 'introduction of the first package at Round4 (Bah). In parallel, the development of the SF-25 must go on while trying to widen the car's window. The two cannot be ruled out that they may collide and be functional for each other.

also one interesting answer he gave


Rosario, are you 100% sure of a structural problem with the rear suspension?
We have information that points in that direction.

[Luscion]

Are Motorsport Italy as reliable as the english version? this is what theyre saying


https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-fe ... /10707312/

The keel with the step in the diffuser suffers if there is no stability.

Some have identified problems in the rear end where the gearbox has been miniaturized (it is shorter to facilitate a more suitable weight distribution) and the rear suspension has been redesigned, still in a pull-rod pattern but with different kinematics. The suspicion is that a package with the necessary stiffness has not been found behind, ruling out the possibility that the problems are not aerodynamic in nature.

According to our information, no suspension changes are planned, but a “cut and sew” in the diffuser keel where the red car has introduced a sort of step, a small curb that generates more downforce provided it works at the height envisioned in the wind tunnel, would be considered. At the mechanical level, a stiffer setup will be sought, but without changing parts.

it is not certain that the changes to the two single-seaters will arrive in Japan, so it is more likely that something will be seen only in Bahrain.

[ringo]

Well you can’t base that just because last year was good doesn’t necessarily mean, that the car will be much better this year. I mean look at Redbull, that RB21 is as unpredictable to drive that Max has to make micro corrections in every corner just to get for it to be competitive which is a night and day difference compared to the RB19.

Plus the Ferrari maximum performance is when it run extremely low to the ground, but any other top team can run as super close to ground as Ferrari, but if their’s a risk of massive plank wear and risks of floor damage during kerb riding or bottoming out via porpoising….it’s not worth the risk especially in a budget cap era.

Well for the low running, it could be one little mechanical oversight that prevents them from doing so controlably. I do not see the evidence that they are running lower than everyone else to get performance. They are probably running just as low, but have excursions with ride height that the others do not have because theirs is better control of the aero platform.
This can be down to something as simple as deflections in control arms or pull rod, tyre movement due to camber, or free play in a rose joint, or heave element.
0.5 mm is very small distance to fail a wear test!
The car failed in 4 measurements around the reference point, showing that the wear was not lopsided. Looks like it was wearing down the straight or coming out of the corners.
Maybe Ferarri needs a flexi rear wing to offload the car on the straight, who knows?

Thats not illustration of the error, simply the manifestation of material resistance to the wear it's subjected. It cannot be placed, at that dimension, within the suspension's architecture to demonstrate what should be "fixed" it's just accumulative wear from how many times its hit the ground/track.

It is illustration of the error. Yes the material would have been wearing down over the race distance to that point. But remember this is 0.5mm beyond the limit of wear. The plank would be thicker than the limit at the start of the race.
The engineers should design for a hard stop at the limit with margin built in. The car can ride on the floor without reaching the stop limit of the suspension and tyres, but at some point there needs to be something like bump rubbers spring stiffness, or roll bars to limit the suspension travel at certain loads. The FIA also has tight controls over the material of the plank. So all teams are pretty much in the same boat in terms of wear resistance of the plank.

[ringo]

Are Motorsport Italy as reliable as the english version? this is what theyre saying


https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-fe ... /10707312/

The keel with the step in the diffuser suffers if there is no stability.

Some have identified problems in the rear end where the gearbox has been miniaturized (it is shorter to facilitate a more suitable weight distribution) and the rear suspension has been redesigned, still in a pull-rod pattern but with different kinematics. The suspicion is that a package with the necessary stiffness has not been found behind, ruling out the possibility that the problems are not aerodynamic in nature.

According to our information, no suspension changes are planned, but a “cut and sew” in the diffuser keel where the red car has introduced a sort of step, a small curb that generates more downforce provided it works at the height envisioned in the wind tunnel, would be considered. At the mechanical level, a stiffer setup will be sought, but without changing parts.

it is not certain that the changes to the two single-seaters will arrive in Japan, so it is more likely that something will be seen only in Bahrain.

Yep, I pretty much predicted this is step to take. Slap Dash Engineering! Redbull pretty much did this for Singapore last year.

[Nicktendo86]

McLaren had a similar issue at the start of the last season and don't forguet the have the same front suspension.

Can y'all please stop making me compliment Mclaren so much now? lol It feels dirty. But I also see no point in denying reality. They're setting a high bar, and Ferrari have clearly not yet shown they are up to matching it.

No keep it coming Sean, it’s music to my ears

[ScuderiaLeo]

Are Motorsport Italy as reliable as the english version? this is what theyre saying

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-fe ... /10707312/

Nugnes is not super reliable. For example he claimed last season they'd bring a big package to Silverstone, which didn't happen. Then he claimed it would be in Zandvoort, which also didn't happen. Another thing I recall is that he implied multiple times Mike Elliott would be Ferrari's new TD

But he is right every once in a while, maybe 1/4 of all claims he makes. A broken clock is right twice a day and all.

[Farnborough]

Well for the low running, it could be one little mechanical oversight that prevents them from doing so controlably. I do not see the evidence that they are running lower than everyone else to get performance. They are probably running just as low, but have excursions with ride height that the others do not have because theirs is better control of the aero platform.
This can be down to something as simple as deflections in control arms or pull rod, tyre movement due to camber, or free play in a rose joint, or heave element.
0.5 mm is very small distance to fail a wear test!
The car failed in 4 measurements around the reference point, showing that the wear was not lopsided. Looks like it was wearing down the straight or coming out of the corners.
Maybe Ferarri needs a flexi rear wing to offload the car on the straight, who knows?

Thats not illustration of the error, simply the manifestation of material resistance to the wear it's subjected. It cannot be placed, at that dimension, within the suspension's architecture to demonstrate what should be "fixed" it's just accumulative wear from how many times its hit the ground/track.

It is illustration of the error. Yes the material would have been wearing down over the race distance to that point. But remember this is 0.5mm beyond the limit of wear. The plank would be thicker than the limit at the start of the race.
The engineers should design for a hard stop at the limit with margin built in. The car can ride on the floor without reaching the stop limit of the suspension and tyres, but at some point there needs to be something like bump rubbers spring stiffness, or roll bars to limit the suspension travel at certain loads. The FIA also has tight controls over the material of the plank. So all teams are pretty much in the same boat in terms of wear resistance of the plank.

I understand what is supposed to happen, in engineering terms.

That 0.5mm is simply the amount they've been caught with their trousers down, over and above an acceptable limit from new plank to tolerance allowed.

It does not, and cannot represent the same amount within the suspension architecture. It's not as simple as setting a "bump stop" 0.5 mm higher and claiming It's fixed.

They all intentionally run suspension that will impinge on the plank wear. That in attempt to keep it as low as possible to gain through floor loading. They are effectively gaming this aspect by trying to get through the race with maximum wear UPTO the limit. But its not a hard stop to achieve that.

If you look at a floor after use its worn to hell all over it. They are highly marginal in this, intentionally.

Their problem, with one car, was hitting it too hard too often, such that they breeched their own prediction of material left.

By all accounts, it was lifted too after the sprint race.

[Formula 1 fan 1996]

Will it be difficult to expect Ferrari to win a race soon, or is there a chance of victory given the characteristics of the next few races?

The car is still a huge question mark. It seems to be super sensitive, and even when optimal, I think it's fairly clear the Mclaren is still ultimately faster. But who knows how close we could be if the car could more consistently be running optimally. China was weird for many reasons and of course Australia was mixed conditions at an unrepresentative track.

Ferrari need to be worrying less about winning races at this point and more about learning how to actually build a better car. Cuz they still clearly dont have it figured out. There was a hope that the Barcelona update last year was a one-off, but as we're seeing now, it wasn't.

That said, nobody outside of Mclaren and Newey-era Red Bull have cracked these regulations anyways. Clearly quite a challenge to manage all the dynamics in play.

Okay, thank you for answer and explanation.

[ringo]

@Farnborough What you are describing is that the car is being designed to ride and completely ignore that the plank is there.
I do not think this is the case. If there is 20mm of travel in the suspension based on the highest predicted load on the wheels, I do not think the engineers will knowingly allow the floor coming in contact with the track to be at 15mm for example when the plank can only wear by 1mm. That's literally intending on the car to slam onto the plank way before the suspension limits and grind away lap after lap.
I am a mechanical engineer, not an F-1 race suspension engineer, so I could be completely ignorant on this, but that approach just does not sound right.
The F-1 engineers are fully well capable to limit the compression of the suspension to within fractions of a mm, especially to avoid a DQ.
And they will do so even more now that they were disqualified in China.

I guess the question is, what benefit is there in riding the car on the plank until it eats away at 1.5mm or more?
10mm is the regulated thickness.
Why not engineer it to rub away 0.8m to bring you to 9.2mm thickness for aerodynamic benefit all that good stuff?
Rubbing of a 1.5mm chunk to arrive at 8.5mm just sounds like a blunder or misunderstanding of something going on on the car.

[Farnborough]

@Farnborough What you are describing is that the car is being designed to ride and completely ignore that the plank is there.
I do not think this is the case. If there is 20mm of travel in the suspension based on the highest predicted load on the wheels, I do not think the engineers will knowingly allow the floor coming in contact with the track to be at 15mm for example when the plank can only wear by 1mm. That's literally intending on the car to slam onto the plank way before the suspension limits and grind away lap after lap.
I am a mechanical engineer, not an F-1 race suspension engineer, so I could be completely ignorant on this, but that approach just does not sound right.
The F-1 engineers are fully well capable to limit the compression of the suspension to within fractions of a mm, especially to avoid a DQ.
And they will do so even more now that they were disqualified in China.

I guess the question is, what benefit is there in riding the car on the plank until it eats away at 1.5mm or more?
10mm is the regulated thickness.
Why not engineer it to rub away 0.8m to bring you to 9.2mm thickness for aerodynamic benefit all that good stuff?
Rubbing of a 1.5mm chunk to arrive at 8.5mm just sounds like a blunder or misunderstanding of something going on on the car.

Thats, more or less, exactly what they intend. Quite the scale of those numbers intimately, well were not privy to that.

The controversy recently about floor wear was specifically about those wear measurements points and how the teams were allowing those reference points that will be measured to flex up into the floor, and so avoiding wear by displacement in "retraction" as they were effectively shunted up into the chassis. That being supported by notionally "flexible" mounting substrate between plank and carbon tub structures etc.

Control purely by suspension as you suggest will ultimately impact the tyre structure to promote bouncing (tyres being essentially an undamped spring) ahem, "porpoising" as known as.
Hitting the floor onto the ground, with elasticity in tbat support structure (as much as they can get away with) effectively IS the bump stop, also bypasses putting load into the tyre at a peak frequency that can cause it to bounce.

Their setup, as I've noted, is "gaming" this whole method in exploitation, which they got wrong this time. Just look at how much plank substrate is ejected out the rear into diffuser expansion plume, this seen in some ambient light condition.

Oh, me too an engineer in origin. Loosely in scale from singular micron (measured in birefringent interferance) up to approx 5 mtrs

[Farnborough]

Adding to this, did anyone notice that the #44 car has good image (looks like post sprint race with LH just got out) but very low level camera view giving good geometric record of level above track etc ?

It's sitting (if I've got that image location correct) with negative rake on chassis, even with fuel empty at that point .

In reality, static negative rake (rear of floor lower) appears to suggest they've got a floor design/ architecture in aero that is effective at only the lowest point it can be set. I know they all aim for it, but others (that's those McL boys) seem to have much more practical height to play with.

This SF 25 conundrum appears to be around just how narrow that floor to ground dimension is. Notably effective in Aus practice, again China sprint Q and race, but they can't keep it there a whole race without plank risk.

Perhaps this discussion should be over in the car thread

[ringo]

@Farnborough What you are describing is that the car is being designed to ride and completely ignore that the plank is there.
I do not think this is the case. If there is 20mm of travel in the suspension based on the highest predicted load on the wheels, I do not think the engineers will knowingly allow the floor coming in contact with the track to be at 15mm for example when the plank can only wear by 1mm. That's literally intending on the car to slam onto the plank way before the suspension limits and grind away lap after lap.
I am a mechanical engineer, not an F-1 race suspension engineer, so I could be completely ignorant on this, but that approach just does not sound right.
The F-1 engineers are fully well capable to limit the compression of the suspension to within fractions of a mm, especially to avoid a DQ.
And they will do so even more now that they were disqualified in China.

I guess the question is, what benefit is there in riding the car on the plank until it eats away at 1.5mm or more?
10mm is the regulated thickness.
Why not engineer it to rub away 0.8m to bring you to 9.2mm thickness for aerodynamic benefit all that good stuff?
Rubbing of a 1.5mm chunk to arrive at 8.5mm just sounds like a blunder or misunderstanding of something going on on the car.

Thats, more or less, exactly what they intend. Quite the scale of those numbers intimately, well were not privy to that.

The controversy recently about floor wear was specifically about those wear measurements points and how the teams were allowing those reference points that will be measured to flex up into the floor, and so avoiding wear by displacement in "retraction" as they were effectively shunted up into the chassis. That being supported by notionally "flexible" mounting substrate between plank and carbon tub structures etc.

Control purely by suspension as you suggest will ultimately impact the tyre structure to promote bouncing (tyres being essentially an undamped spring) ahem, "porpoising" as known as.
Hitting the floor onto the ground, with elasticity in tbat support structure (as much as they can get away with) effectively IS the bump stop, also bypasses putting load into the tyre at a peak frequency that can cause it to bounce.

Their setup, as I've noted, is "gaming" this whole method in exploitation, which they got wrong this time. Just look at how much plank substrate is ejected out the rear into diffuser expansion plume, this seen in some ambient light condition.

Oh, me too an engineer in origin. Loosely in scale from singular micron (measured in birefringent interferance) up to approx 5 mtrs

Do you have evidence of this? Not for the sake of argument, but so as to not mislead the forum. There were many theories on the forum that got debunked, but the damage was done. One being the anti-dive concept of the control arms.
I am not following the point on the tyre structure and bouncing because of suspension . Tyres have damping in them, one of the best dampers in nature, that would be the air/nitrogen inside. Part of the reason the tyres get hot is the damping effect. What also happens when the car hits the plank is the suspension momentarily offloads. I suspect that's probably contributing to the porpoising too.
Point taken on the gaming. They are definitely gaming the system, but Ferrari must be using a whacka mole hammer with this game to get both cars DQed so badly.