The FIA has issued a statement confirming that Charles Leclerc’s SF-25, subjected to more thorough post-race checks after the Spanish GP, was compliant. Interestingly, Jo Bauer’s scrutineers investigated whether the car featured a system enabling asymmetric braking—a solution that was previously denied to exist on last year’s Red Bull.
Charles Leclerc’s Ferrari SF-25 was the car chosen by the FIA for the standard in-depth technical inspections following the Spanish Grand Prix. The technical delegates, led by Jo Bauer, focused specifically on the braking system of the Maranello car, particularly the rear brakes.
The Ferrari was declared fully legal under the inspections, which were conducted in compliance with:
Article 8.3 of the Technical Regulations regarding the homologation status of all sensors and actuators linked to the standard ECU in relation to the rear braking system;
Article 11.1 concerning potential mechanisms capable of generating asymmetric braking torque on the rear axle;
Article 11.4 ensuring that the pressure in the rear brake calipers does not exceed that generated by the force applied on the brake pedal.
Everything was found to be in order, although it’s rather striking that the FIA chose to thoroughly investigate whether Ferrari had a system capable of managing asymmetric braking at the rear.
This is especially notable because the FIA had previously suggested that no such system existed in F1, particularly when the car under scrutiny was Max Verstappen’s Red Bull RB20. That car had seemed unbeatable last season, until it was said that a particular solution—potentially capable of creating a steering effect—was banned, as it was explicitly forbidden by the regulations.
Experts we consulted had explained that it was nearly impossible to design a braking system that could guarantee the repeatability required for asymmetric braking commands, effectively dismissing the notion that any team might have developed such a complex and safely operable solution. However, the fact that the FIA is now actively conducting such inspections brings back the suspicion that someone might at least have tried to exploit a grey area.
