Ferrari and McLaren have followed very different approaches in Formula 1, both in terms of design philosophy and technical strategy. At first glance, comparing these two technical projects might seem paradoxical, given the distinct paths chosen by each team. Yet, the ultimate goal for both was identical: to elevate performance and competitiveness compared to their cars from the previous season. After fourteen races into the 2025 Formula 1 season, it is clear which approach has yielded more consistent results. The design of a Formula 1 car can either build upon the strengths of a successful previous model or embrace entirely new paradigms, creating a marked break from past philosophies. The choice between continuity and innovation often defines the trajectory of a team across a season.
The origins of a winning platform
It can now be stated with confidence that the design philosophy underpinning the McLaren MCL38 was far from limited in its potential. The MCL39 single-seater, building on the previous car’s strengths, has continued to raise the bar in both performance and reliability. Last year’s car already possessed unexplored margins that allowed the engineering team to take calculated risks, making bolder decisions while basing their innovations on the foundation of a well-established aero-mechanical platform.
This progression represents a long-term development process that began with the McLaren MCL60 in 2023, a car that struggled for competitiveness and forced drivers Oscar Piastri and Lando Norris to battle in the lower midfield. The slow ascent to the upper regions of the grid was overshadowed by the dominant Red Bull team, which maintained near-total control until the Asian rounds of the 2024 Formula 1 season. It was during this period that Red Bull began to experience the first signs of a performance plateau, a trajectory that has continued into 2025.
The turning point for McLaren came with Lando Norris’ first career victory in Miami. While circumstances such as race incidents and strategy contributed, this win also highlighted the technological maturity of McLaren’s development path. The team’s continuous refinement of aerodynamics, suspension geometry, and chassis balance had culminated in a car capable of competing at the very front. Lando Norris’ occasional lapses, however, prevented the team from fully maximizing potential victories, showing that while the car was competitive, driver execution remained critical.
The matter of updates has been a key differentiator. Each upgrade introduced to the McLaren MCL39 has reliably enhanced performance. In contrast, other teams often faced setbacks when new components underperformed, necessitating “rollbacks” that wasted both time and resources. McLaren’s precise simulation systems, wind tunnel testing, and CFD validation processes have allowed the team to implement changes without rushing, carefully assessing performance gains before each race weekend. This systematic approach demonstrates the strength of their engineering philosophy: methodical, data-driven, and low-risk.
Ferrari’s technical discontinuity has not paid off
In contrast, Ferrari attempted to raise the bar with the SF-25, aiming to break from the constraints of the previous car’s design. The team concluded that the technical project from their 2024 championship campaign had reached its limits, with little untapped potential remaining. Consequently, Ferrari engineers and technicians in Maranello opted to adopt a front pull-rod suspension, aligning with McLaren and Red Bull’s approach. This suspension choice, which was introduced under the 2022 regulatory framework, allows for improved airflow around the front wing and more efficient mechanical grip, but requires precise integration with the car’s overall aerodynamics to realize its potential.
The courage to change in the final year of regulatory continuity should be acknowledged. Ferrari’s engineers took a bold step in redesigning the SF-25’s suspension layout and rethinking aero-mechanical balance. However, the result—referred to internally as “project 677”—exposed significant issues that forced drivers to compromise on pace throughout the season. Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton were consistently required to drive as if the handbrake were partially engaged, unable to push the car to its maximum potential without risking instability or performance loss. The team’s inability to harmonize the new suspension with the aerodynamics created an ongoing challenge, limiting tire management, cornering speed, and overall race pace.
Unlike McLaren, which identified a clear development trajectory from 2023 onward, Ferrari struggled to find a stable foundation, frequently shifting its aero-mechanical philosophy year by year. While many of the SF-25 upgrades were introduced early thanks to meticulous factory development work, these changes often fell short of expectations on track. In some cases, innovations delivered theoretical gains in wind tunnel and simulation testing but failed to translate into real-world performance, highlighting the challenges of bridging conceptual design and practical application. Ferrari’s experience emphasizes the risk inherent in pursuing aggressive technical discontinuity rather than incremental evolution.
Reflecting on Ferrari’s choices, it is difficult to determine whether the core philosophy was fundamentally flawed or whether the failures stemmed from the specific solutions implemented. The SF-25 demonstrated that completely changing the car’s design in the final season before the new 2026 regulations may have been an excessively high-risk decision. By contrast, McLaren’s strategy of refining and maximizing the existing platform allowed for steady, measurable progress and reliable competitiveness. Continuity provided a foundation for innovation, whereas Ferrari’s radical approach introduced complexities that drivers and engineers alike struggled to fully exploit.
Suspension philosophy and technical risk
The choice of suspension layout plays a critical role in modern Formula 1 car design. McLaren’s adoption of the pull-rod front suspension in 2023 allowed for lower center of gravity, improved airflow management, and a more balanced mechanical grip across various track surfaces. Ferrari, by copying the pull-rod solution in 2025, faced the challenge of integrating it into a car whose aerodynamics and chassis dynamics were not originally conceived for this configuration. The result has been unpredictable handling characteristics and an inconsistent response under different track and tire conditions, highlighting the importance of holistic design integration rather than isolated component changes.
Looking ahead, Ferrari will need to reconcile its ambition for radical design with the practical realities of performance delivery. Incremental development, rigorous simulation, and careful integration of upgrades may offer a more reliable path toward competitiveness under the forthcoming 2026 regulations. McLaren’s method demonstrates that a disciplined, stepwise approach to evolution, even when paired with occasional bold choices, can yield more consistent results than pursuing a wholesale technical revolution in a single season.
In conclusion, the 2025 Formula 1 season has shown that both philosophy and execution matter in Formula 1. McLaren’s disciplined continuity has produced a car that can consistently challenge for victories and podiums, while Ferrari’s ambitious attempt to reinvent its design has faced persistent technical hurdles. Whether Ferrari will adjust its approach for future regulatory cycles or persist with radical change remains to be seen. What is certain is that the lessons from this season will shape both the Italian and British teams’ strategies, influencing suspension choices, aero-mechanical integration, and the overall philosophy guiding their car development programs.
The contrast between Ferrari and McLaren provides a compelling study in Formula 1 engineering: one team thrives on methodical evolution, while the other risks disruption in pursuit of a step-change advantage. The decisions made this season will be critical in determining who emerges stronger under the new regulatory environment, and who learns to balance ambition with operational reliability.
Leave a Reply