Ferrari is currently a struggling Formula 1 team; denying it would be quite foolish. We have all understood this, as the team has been disappointing in recent weeks and the anticipated progress has not materialized. As always in the top category of motorsport, attributing poor results to a single factor is unwise. Instead, there are various elements to consider, and when combined, they contribute to the current state of the Italian team. The Prancing Horse is far from being in form, unfortunately, lagging behind Red Bull and McLaren, and now being overtaken even by Mercedes’s recovery.
First, we should point out that the Maranello team did not enter the 2024 Formula 1 championship with the expectation of winning. On the contrary, the target was clear: continuing to improve as a team and trying to challenge the reigning world champions. In this regard, the start was good. There were steps forward compared to last season, and up until the Monaco Grand Prix, where Ferrari achieved the top spot by beating everyone with Charles Leclerc and even scored a double podium finish with Carlos Sainz in third place, hopes for another step to increase performance were at least palpable. Then, suddenly, darkness fell. The light went out, and the correct working point of the SF-24 was lost.
Frederic Vasseur, Carlos Sainz, and Charles Leclerc have shown some disappointment. It could not be otherwise. The two Ferrari drivers are eagerly awaiting the resolution of the issues because the pre-Spain SF-24 was competitive for victory and seemed very close to the much-desired goal: a car that could fight at the top in any competitive scenario. This has not been the case, and looking at the numbers, the downturn in the last two races is painful. Supporters, once again disappointed, suffer. A brief recap of how events unfolded can help us understand what has happened and what will become of the 2024 Ferrari F1 car.
Let’s start with the Imola Grand Prix, the competitive scenario where the Italian team introduced the first aerodynamic package of updates on the SF-24. Updates that, as we know, actually debuted during the Fiorano tests, when Ferrari had the opportunity to get a brief first feedback regarding the technical features and innovations produced by the technical department led by Enrico Cardile, Ferrari’s Head of the Chassis Area who may soon leave to join Aston Martin. These upgrades aimed for a substantial quality leap. Partially, these aspirations were achieved because, from the Italian circuit, the Ferrari SF-24 undoubtedly showed superior performance. Compared to the rest of the competitors who seem to have snubbed this solution, Ferrari adopted the inverted sidepods.
Shark inlets in Red Bull style to make the undercut area larger. A technical path that seemed the best to follow at that precise moment. A solution implemented very quickly that was supposed to theoretically offer significant advantages over the direct competition. However, things did not go quite this way, as months later, Ferrari has not kept pace with Red Bull and McLaren and has also lost ground to the Brackley team, as mentioned. Arriving at the Circuit de Catalunya in Barcelona for the Spanish Grand Prix, the Maranello team presented a new floor, refined sidepods, and even a different specification of the rear wing.
These solutions were useful for increasing downforce and stabilizing the aerodynamic platform of the SF-24. The floor of a Formula 1 car is the element that produces the greatest percentage of vertical thrust. The goal was to widen the setup window with “clean” downforce that allows the car to increase performance without the burden of downforce generated by the wings. This aspect also contributes to tire management regarding the warm up procedure of the tires. This should have led to increasing the predictability of the car even further and, indeed, challenging the best with the right tools at hand.
Despite the fact that Charles Leclerc had the old floor in Barcelona, he still did not find the handling satisfactory. The changes were supposed to address deficient areas of the car with a broader and more flexible operational window. The SF-24 had shown good performance in fast corners up until the Spanish track, especially in sustained curves. However, in more technical sections, it struggled more, especially if a certain compromise in terms of stiffness between high and low speeds was necessary. Ferrari has always suffered from oversteer since the pre-season testing session at the Bahrain International circuit back in February.
A characteristic that was somewhat intended but had never excessively bothered the drivers. From a purely technical standpoint, it is not at all simple to understand and explain what is happening with Ferrari. Recently, there has been much talk about porpoising in fast corners. Carlos Sainz has often mentioned it, while Charles Leclerc admits there are problems but does not talk about this specific issue. Without a doubt, there is a certain degree of bouncing in high-speed corners. We saw it in Spain, in turn 3, or in Austria in turn 2. This phenomenon, however, also affects other cars, such as Mercedes, albeit in a different way.
However, there are several factors that sum up in this Ferrari crisis. For slow corners, the Maranello technicians intervened with targeted steps, both from a suspension and aerodynamic point of view, to provide more grip to the car. To make the SF-24’s aerodynamics work well in high-speed corners, the suspension stiffness was very high. This factor produces an imbalance in technical sections. It is then up to the team to adopt a suspension setup and kinematics that still allow for the generation of a lot of mechanical grip. This is anything but simple.
Ferrari has lost something in terms of performance in fast sections, this is a clear fact. In Austria, but also in Spain, the SF-24 car was not at the level of other top cars, despite having high potential in this type of corner. The question is: does the new floor work properly? It would seem so, listening to the confirmations from drivers and technicians. In Spielberg, the initial focus was on optimizing the fast sections. However, very soon, the Maranello team realized through Charles Leclerc’s very negative feedback that performance at low speeds was suffering a real collapse.
The Monegasque complained of a severe lack of overall grip in the technical sections, specifically the first and second sectors. Ferrari therefore tried to improve performance in the slow corners by reducing the stiffness of the suspension system. As a result, the floor showed less load effectiveness in the wide-radius corners. Moreover, the rear wing did not generate enough vertical thrust to stabilize the rear. The medium-high downforce specification from Spain was not used because the excessive drag produced would have slowed the car down too much.
Ferrari’s aerodynamic efficiency is not as competitive as Red Bull or McLaren, and the progress made is less than expected. Without adequate rear downforce, the drivers could do very little in Austria. From mid-corner onward, the SF-24 was destabilized, leading to excessive rotation, the so-called oversteer, that slowed performance. This issue appeared on both cars, particularly between turns 6 and 7 at the Red Bull Ring circuit in Spielberg. Considering all factors, we saw inefficiency in both slow and fast corners. Let’s examine the qualifying performance in turn 3.
Ferrari was only 0.055s behind Max Verstappen, but during cornering, the gap increased significantly, especially from apex to exit. In fast corners, due to severe instability between mid-corner and exit, the SF-24 lost another 2 tenths. A more understeering car would be needed for entry and exit, as this characteristic generates greater stability. At the apex, a slight degree of oversteer is beneficial to rotate the car. Ferrari had excessive rotation that persisted through the exit, delaying the point at which the drivers could accelerate. There were also frequent steering corrections.
The operational window of the Italian car is currently narrower. It’s a short interval, where benefiting one area means compromising another. This is also due to the performance improvement of direct competitors such as Red Bull and McLaren, which are now much more complete compared to Ferrari. This aspect, beyond any specific technical discussion, has had a greater impact in the last two weekends. As mentioned, fine-tuning a car with a narrow window doesn’t work because a real compromise between slow and fast essentially doesn’t exist.
Porpoising is a problem that adds to a much broader and more complex scenario. Therefore, it is reductive to consider aerodynamic bouncing as the only issue. This phenomenon, as mentioned, is also present on other cars and was even there on the SF-24 in the first part of the 2024 Formula 1 season. It is a phenomenon that teams have learned to manage. Ferrari is currently struggling to handle it after the updates to the floor. This issue should be resolved through understanding a new setup both with simulations and with experience gained on the track.
Source: FUnoanalisitecnica
