Ferrari and McLaren are once again under scrutiny in Formula 1. In this article we present a more detailed comparison of the front suspensions, which have now become the benchmark for the top category of motorsport. For the 2025 Formula 1 racing season, the Woking team has designed a single-seater based on past Red Bulls, pushing the concepts to the extreme to take their car to an even higher level, as suspension expertise seems to be flourishing in Woking.
This is not a coincidence; rather, it stems from a clear and evident fact. Many engineers who worked in Milton Keynes, those who played a central role in Red Bull’s projects, have moved to McLaren in the past two seasons, bringing their know-how. Among them is Rob Marshall. The British engineer, born in 1968, has done an excellent job.
Among the various concepts “borrowed” from Red Bull, McLaren has decided to push the suspension system to the limit. The new pull-rod configuration has opened up a new development path, from which the historic British team is reaping great benefits. They have done so with intelligence, already having significant experience with the potential issues they might face. Ferrari has also adopted the pull-rod system for the 2025 Formula 1 car.
We continue to emphasize that there is no actual mechanical difference. There are no inherent advantages in using one system over the other. The key difference lies in the spatial positioning of the arms, specifically in the anchoring points of the wishbones. The Maranello team’s engineers and technicians have undertaken a significant revolution, aiming to exploit certain concepts to maximize the aerodynamics of the SF-25 car.
Let’s examine the comparison graphic, which shows clear differences in anti-dive. The respective upper wishbone arms are highlighted in green, while the second arms of the same wishbone are shown in yellow. The orientation defines the percentage of anti-dive in the front suspension. The lower wishbone of the SF-25 is more similar in layout to that of the MCL39 single-seater. The major difference lies in the upper wishbone.
Source: funoanalisitecnica
Specifically, in the case of the British car, the arm highlighted in yellow is noticeably lower compared to the Italian team’s version. The dashed yellow line emphasizes this aspect. This arm is therefore largely responsible for the significant difference between Ferrari and McLaren in terms of anti-dive percentage.
To clarify further, let’s simplify the concept: during braking, we can imagine an F1 car rotating around a certain point. The green dashed line represents the inclination of the upper wishbone. The same can be done with the lower wishbone. The intersection of these two lines determines a point around which the suspension rotates during pitch motion, for example, under braking.
Let’s take a small step further. If this point is located far from the car’s center of mass, the lever arm of the inertia forces generated during braking will be greater and, consequently, the resulting moment will also be greater. Without delving too much into mathematics, we can say that with a more pronounced yellow-marked arm, the percentage of anti-dive will be higher, an aspect that carries significant practical implications.
When the car brakes, weight shifts to the front, generating a load transfer. For the McLaren MCL39, the percentage of load that will activate the internal suspension elements will be lower precisely due to its higher degree of anti-dive. Meanwhile, for Ferrari, the internal elements will be more activated. This characteristic helps reduce the stiffness levels required for the suspension but, more importantly, brings an aerodynamic benefit.
The more limited the suspension oscillation, the less the floor will move. This setup allows the aerodynamic department to develop a less complex framework, working with a more stable airflow that is less prone to separation risks. The suspension response will also improve, which is precisely why McLaren is highly focused on the front end, even though they have currently found an excellent balance between both axles.
Their strength compared to Red Bull has been precisely this: using similar concepts but applying them in a way that delivers better on-track results and is easier for drivers to manage. Ferrari has a good front end, but so far, it produces excessive understeer. Only the Maranello engineers and technicians know exactly what causes this. It must be said that an F1 car is the result of an enormous number of compromises, which are very difficult to get right.
The balance of the Italian car is too rearward because, at the moment, they are forced to make technical compromises related to other parameters. Load transfer is crucial for putting energy into the tires and bringing them into the right operating window. If anti-dive is overdone, the front tires struggle to reach the correct temperature, a problem that McLaren is not suffering from at all.
This is precisely where Bob Marshall’s expertise came into play. Given his past experience, he knew how to avoid this potential headache. The Woking team has therefore implemented various solutions on multiple fronts to ensure optimal activation. One of these involves managing tire temperature through the hub, a truly intelligent solution to counteract potential front-end issues.
Compared to 2024, Ferrari has improved front-end activation, an important advantage, especially in qualifying, although it has not yet been fully appreciated. Making a certain degree of anti-dive work properly is not easy. To maximize this approach, a significant amount of development effort is required, and the solution itself is not just about lowering the arm we highlighted in yellow in that image.
It is about finding the right compromise to avoid disaster. Without a doubt, Ferrari’s first priority is to solve its chronic understeer, which may also have other causes. The Italian team is still “exploring” the car to find the correct interpretation. All this must be done while keeping in mind that the budget cap limits operations, and making mistakes with updates would be a fatal problem.
