Ferrari chasing on the technical front (and beyond)
The big news in the Ferrari Formula 1 world these days is undoubtedly the recent revelation that the Maranello team is working on a modified rear suspension, with the clear goal of addressing the deeper issues the SF25 has faced so far, without resorting to superficial fixes that would, in reality, only be temporary solutions. This, however, prompts much reflection on several fronts, from the technical side to the managerial and sporting aspects.
A necessarily extreme rigidity, yet still insufficient: a chain of problems
Starting from the technical standpoint, following data and the 2025 Formula 1 season’s progress, there has always been the sense that the Maranello car suffers from a fundamental issue located at the rear end of the vehicle, with the mechanics of that part playing a significant role. Ferrari’s obvious need to raise the car from the very first race was a notable signal in this sense, with clearly better performances in the Sprint races further confirming initial impressions, and with Lewis Hamilton’s disqualification in China removing any remaining doubt. These are the most striking episodes, but race and test data, including the winter pre-season testing session in Bahrain, have consistently pointed to ground clearance, with the car always seeming to perform significantly better under certain specific load conditions and corresponding ride heights, as if it only operates correctly within a narrow design window at certain distances from the ground. The rear-end problem now appears to be twofold: on one hand, in order to minimize the need to raise the car, Ferrari has tended to run a very stiff rear axle setup, probably constantly near the maximum rigidity possible, but which has still proven insufficient to maintain the intended ride height.
Excessive rear stiffness, for example, results in worse traction, and it’s no coincidence that in China, where it is clear that the Maranello technicians and engineer attempted to lower and further stiffen the car after the Sprint win, Charles Leclerc complained about the “Dragster-like” traction of George Russell’s Mercedes ahead of him compared to his SF25. Nor does it seem coincidental that during various rigidity tests at winter testing in Bahrain, the Monegasque driver even spun on his own, such was the lack of rear grip when getting back on the throttle. Further confirmation comes from the fact that the rear of the car tends to oversteer out of every corner, struggling to find the mechanical grip needed to put power to the ground, due to the high stiffness setting. On the other hand, the confirmed need to significantly raise the car to prevent excessive plank wear is proof that even the suspension stiffness achieved isn’t sufficient to prevent the platform from dropping too low under load, causing the floor to hit the tarmac.
A major issue, which leads to a cascade of further problems both in fast corners and even more so in slow ones. Drivers constantly complain about lack of downforce, caused by the increased ride height that limits aero performance. This is felt even in slow corners, compounded by the mechanical stiffness that already makes the car hard to handle. While it’s true that downforce is more effective at high speeds, it’s also true that the corrections possible in slow corners are far less effective. In simple terms, adding a few more degrees to the wing (or beam wing) can help offset a lack of overall downforce at high speeds (ignoring the consequences on balance and efficiency), but in low-speed corners the effectiveness of aero surfaces decreases quadratically, making it nearly impossible to find adjustments that truly generate the same amount of grip. In short, one problem leads to another—especially with this generation of cars—and, as mentioned earlier, the clues all seem to converge on the rear suspension, which the Maranello team is attempting to redesign.
A problem of design target identification more than simulation
Once the problem (or interconnected problems) is understood, the immediate next question is where it comes from and how an organization like Ferrari could fall into such glaring errors in systems like the suspension group, which is simulated in great detail using Maranello team’s dynamic rigs, namely tools that usually deliver extremely high-fidelity results. The only plausible answer is that the error does not lie in the simulation itself, but in the input the engineers fed into it, with an overall load balance on the design car that evidently didn’t match the reality of the track, creating a weak link in the rear end. We know that the car was redesigned by 99%, and that the weight distribution also changed significantly. We’ve also seen that aerodynamically they’ve tried to reverse the paradigm of this generation of naturally understeering cars by shifting the center of pressure forward, giving the front end much more strength than the rear.
Something clearly went wrong in the process, especially considering that some key decisions about the SF25 were made in the absence of a technical director at Maranello, during Fred Vasseur’s interim. The impression is that even though the front is significantly stronger than before, which Charles Leclerc indeed appreciates, the way the loads are distributed ends up impacting the rear more than expected, pushing it out of the ideal range for the suspension group. If that’s the case, it’s far from a small error, but it also confirms the difficulty and unpredictability of this generation of ground-effect cars. While it’s true that Ferrari has lacked a winning cycle, no other team has had a flawless path either.
The final question that naturally arises is whether it really makes sense to pursue such a radical change as a suspension redesign, considering realistic timelines and a championship situation likely beyond saving in both standings. The doubt is reinforced by one concrete factor: from what we’ve seen, the SF25 within its ideal working range could have been a good car at the start of the season, probably at least a stable second-best. The problem is that the cars running on track now are already not the same as at the beginning of the season and will continue to evolve rapidly in the upcoming races, with all teams having to accelerate development to free up engineers as early as possible for the 2026 Formula 1 project. Ferrari, for its part, brought the first floor upgrade—approved before the rear-end issue was discovered—in Bahrain, and then little else, with rumors suggesting only minor adjustments on a race-by-race basis.
It is no coincidence that Ferrari team principal Vasseur continues to downplay expectations about aerodynamic updates, likely waiting to see whether the new suspension will actually be approved, and probably putting any other packages on hold, also to stay within the budget cap, until it’s clear what mechanical platform they will be working with. This means Ferrari will be significantly behind in a year when everyone else is ahead, raising the question of whether it really makes sense to invest a necessarily large amount of time, people, and money in trying to radically straighten out the SF25 project, only to perhaps achieve a few isolated victories. Especially considering that the rule change will render much of this year’s work largely useless for the next one. The answer seems to lie entirely in image and in the relationship with the fans. Ferrari, after all, cannot afford to throw away an entire season by giving up completely after just six races out of twenty-four—especially in Lewis Hamilton’s first year in red, which is itself a major investment in terms of numbers.
The media backlash would be immense, and Maranello necessarily has to try everything to give itself a chance, even if not winning either title will make the season a failure in terms of results. Added to this is likely the attempt to contain the disappointment of Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc, trying to instill some confidence in them looking ahead to the new 2026 cars. After all, this too is part of what it means to be Ferrari.
— see video above —
Leave a Reply