Ferrari also pursued a similar path with the SF-25, adopting a different design philosophy to overcome the structural limits of the SF-24, which had reached the end of its development potential. To be competitive, Ferrari needed to push boundaries with bolder mechanical and aerodynamic modifications designed not only to unlock creativity during the winter but also to enable adjustments throughout the season.
This approach opened new avenues, but here lies the paradox: those same modifications, intended to unlock new opportunities, also became a development constraint. Ferrari’s goal was to enter the season with a competitive car, but these design choices, which hampered the team from the first races, ultimately limited growth and progress during the championship.
It is no secret that the SF-25 is highly sensitive to ride height variations. While this affects all ground-effect cars, Ferrari’s sensitivity this year has been particularly pronounced, creating a cascading effect from the opening Grand Prix in Australia to the most recent races. Ride height issues have impacted performance even at Austin, one of the circuits with the most uneven asphalt on the calendar.
After Friday’s difficulties, Ferrari’s strong response had both technical and operational reasons. Beyond setup adjustments and careful preparation of the out-lap in qualifying, areas where Ferrari demonstrated excellent data interpretation, the underlying issue remained: managing ride height has profoundly affected Ferrari’s season, creating a limitation that cannot be fully resolved.
Managing ride height is more complex than it seems
There is a crucial factor: it’s not just about how low the car runs. Each car wears the skid block differently even at the same ride height because every chassis has its own aerodynamic map. This means the pressure and load points under the floor are distributed differently across cars. FIA checks cover multiple skid block areas precisely because some zones can come closer to the asphalt with varying load peaks.
It is a delicate balancing act, far more intricate than it appears, rooted in the initial design of a Formula 1 car, from mechanical elements to aerodynamics. Even before the season started, Ferrari had tried to shift balance from the project’s foundations, redistributing it through chassis, mechanical, and aerodynamic choices.
These three elements, including the redesigned rear suspension further modified during the season, redistributed pressure zones along the floor, aiming to create more uniform downforce generation compared to the past. The issue is that these decisions produced an unexpected effect: abnormal skid block wear, which simulations had not predicted.
Where teams work to gain an advantage
Inaki Rueda, sporting director at Sauber, explained that many teams struggle with rear skid block wear. Those who manage to shift it forward gain a competitive advantage because they can run lower than rivals. Creating downforce from the rear while ensuring the main contact point is towards the front is highly strategic. This explains why McLaren can run generally lower than rivals without hitting the same limits, as seen in Barcelona where porpoising caused the car to contact the asphalt in high-speed corners. Andrea Stella described Ferrari’s car as innovative on multiple fronts, and Red Bull also regained performance by focusing on ride height management among other elements.
This also clarifies why the sparks from the skid block, caused by the front-most plate, only partially indicate how low a car runs. Floor wear is neither uniform nor consistent across the grid, and teams must carefully balance extremes to avoid compromising performance.
An issue rooted in design and difficult to solve
When wear is concentrated in a specific area, like the rear, the car must be raised, inevitably sacrificing downforce. Ferrari faced this issue early in the season, even on theoretically smoother circuits, a clear sign that the team was pushing the car to its limits to extract every ounce of performance.
Ride height sensitivity affects not only total downforce but also suspension setup, which can be more or less stiff depending on the situation. This creates a cascading effect, which in extreme cases can push the car outside its optimal operating window, reducing performance and occasionally forcing in-race adjustments or changes to racing lines.
This limitation is deeply rooted in the car’s design and cannot be easily corrected mid-season. Ferrari attempted aerodynamic interventions, introducing a new floor, and mechanical adjustments to expand the operating window, but such efforts require significant time and resources. As a result, Maranello opted to halt SF-25 development early to focus resources on next season’s project.
Leave a Reply