The most surprising moment of the United States Grand Prix in Austin was undoubtedly what unfolded after the race. After the customary celebrations and interviews, the FIA issued a statement revealing that the cars of Charles Leclerc (Ferrari) and Lewis Hamilton (Mercedes) had been inspected, along with those of Lando Norris (McLaren) and Max Verstappen (Red Bull). They were found not to comply with the regulations regarding the wear of the underfloor plank. The consequence was the disqualification of the Monegasque and the Englishman, leading to a reshuffling of the standings that saw Carlos Sainz primarily ascend to the podium and Logan Sargeant enter the points zone, resulting in a paradoxical gain for Ferrari in this situation compared to Mercedes.
The cases of Ferrari and Mercedes, as well as Aston Martin and Haas, demonstrate that the Sprint Race format is technically limiting.
The new Sprint Race format has significantly reduced the time available to teams to work during race weekends, relying mainly on simulations carried out in the factory. As a result, technicians, already deprived of private tests, now have even less time to work on the track. The collateral damage from this is becoming more apparent. Modern Formula 1 cars are highly advanced technological works of art, designed and developed in simulators and wind tunnels, but the track remains the only true real-world test that engineers have. Limiting tests was an economic decision that goes against the nature of this sport and its capacity to experiment and evolve these race cars with more freedom. That’s why catching up to a dominant team becomes more complex. One hour of free practice makes it impossible to experiment with new components or experimental setups. The only way is to diversify choices on the cars and make judgments after just an hour, hoping to avoid problems like the one Aston Martin experienced during the FP1 in Austin.
In Texas, we witnessed four pit-lane starts on Sunday because the setups studied in simulators turned out to be incorrect. Teams had to make significant changes to the cars, using different wing settings – more downforce for Haas – or even completely different solutions. Aston Martin left Lance Stroll’s updates behind to revert to the old package with Fernando Alonso – all within the closed park conditions, violating the regulations. These are unpleasant situations that underscore how, despite the many tools at their disposal, on-track work remains crucial.
On this generation of cars, the underfloor is the most performance-sensitive part, and the amount of downforce it generates varies with ride heights. The very bumpy surface of Austin, no longer a surprise, forced some teams to make changes during free practice. Diego Ioverno, Ferrari’s Sporting Director, admitted that the SF-23’s ride height was raised after the FP1 session because they realized how the bumps could damage the underfloor and lead to excessive skid plate wear. However, this adjustment was not sufficient because until Sunday, it was impossible to study the car’s behavior with a full fuel load on board. The skid plate wore out most significantly at the beginning of the race and then lessened as the laps went on. The absence of more hours of free practice and the running of Qualifying and the Sprint Race have misled some technicians ahead of the Sunday race.
The disqualification of Charles Leclerc was undoubtedly a blow to Ferrari, which had already pushed the limits of underfloor wear after the previous race in Austria. However, the fact that Mercedes, with Lewis Hamilton, encountered the same problem mitigates the bitterness of the decision, which cannot be appealed. In terms of the Constructors’ Championship, the Scuderia Ferrari gained more points than the Brackley-based team due to the decision. According to information from formula1.com, the two Ferrari SF-23 cars were set up with very similar settings, suggesting that Carlos Sainz’s situation regarding underfloor wear may not have been much different.
The same argument could also be applied to the second Mercedes of George Russell or to the teams that were not inspected. This highlights the limitations of these post-race inspections. After the race, the FIA randomly selects a few cars because, unfortunately, it does not have the technical or human resources to inspect all 20 cars after the race. Doing so would require much more time to certify the results. The only solution is to choose a sample randomly and limit the inspection to those cars. In addition to the aforementioned two drivers, the cars of Max Verstappen and Lando Norris were also examined but comfortably remained within the regulations without incurring any penalties.
Show your support for Scuderia Ferrari with official merchandise collection! Click here to enter the F1 online Store and shop securely! And also get your F1 tickets for every race with VIP hospitality and unparalleled insider access. Click here for the best offers to support Charles and Carlos from the track!
Ferrari: In Austin, the main issue wasn’t just tire degradation
The aerodynamic choice made in Maranello was to set up the SF-23 with less downforce compared to the competition, allowing Carlos Sainz and Charles Leclerc to excel in terms of straight-line speed, making them formidable in attacking and defending during battles. Ferrari managed tire degradation by setting a moderate pace, gaining downforce from the lowest ride heights. Carlos Sainz handled the Soft tires as best as possible on Saturday and delivered a good performance on Sunday. On the other hand, Charles Leclerc had a few more issues, especially towards the end of the stints. However, on Sunday, the major problem was the wrong strategy, as admitted by Frederic Vasseur.
The one-stop strategy planned for Charles Leclerc required him to slowly introduce the tires to maximize their lifespan. Unfortunately, this choice cost him precious seconds at the beginning and end of his stints, effectively taking away his chances of competing for a podium position. In contrast, Carlos Sainz was able to be more aggressive and showed that his SF-23 was not too far off from the others. Indeed, the Spaniard kept up with Verstappen in the second stint with Medium tires and made up ground on Lando Norris in the final laps with Hard tires. Clearly, the choice of setup had a strong impact. However, the structural limits of the SF-23 emerged once again. The fundamental setup with less downforce is linked to a weak front end, which, despite the latest improvements to the underfloor, still doesn’t provide a perfect balance with a rear end equipped with maximum downforce. Furthermore, the FP1 sessions prevented Ferrari from experimenting with different solutions, making definitive decisions straight from the factory, as explained by Formula 1 experts Paolo D’Alessandro and Giuliano Duchessa for formu1a.uno.
What affected performance more in Austin, though, were many minor issues that other teams also experienced, such as power unit management – especially critical for Charles Leclerc – and brakes. In Maranello, they are eagerly awaiting a new engine for the final stretch of the season to gain more reliability. Charles Leclerc’s late-race struggle in the Sprint Race, unusual for the way it happened and in comparison to Sainz, was the result of tire degradation and the management of these components. On Sunday, the main issue was the incorrect strategy, which will require Fred Vasseur’s intervention to improve the team’s fundamentals and operations. This often involves making decisions based on inaccurate data and judgments.
Leave a Reply