Lewis Hamilton disqualification: behind the scenes of floor consumption and why Charles Leclerc's car was not affected

In the second round of the 2025 Formula 1 season, Ferrari, Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc managed to perform even worse than in Australia. The results don’t lie, as the Maranello team returns home from Chinese Grand Prix with absolutely no points whatsoever. What a great satisfaction, right? The reasons are now well-known. The Italian team itself did not hide behind its finger, posting on social media the penalty imposed by the FIA for a couple of serious irregularities: the first concerns the non-compliant weight of car number 16, the second the excessive wear of the plank, which we will analyze in the second part of the article. First let’s take a look at the infringements.

Those who make mistakes but admit them and learn from then win. A saying that highlights the importance of acknowledging one’s mistakes regarding the double disqualification at the 5.451-kilometre Shanghai International Circuit, when they occur. The Maranello team does this with an official statement posted on its social media accounts. the document above. It reads: “After the post-race FIA check, both of our cars were deemed non-compliant with the regulations for several reasons. Car number 16 was found to be underweight by 1 kilogram, while the wear of the floor of car number 44 was found to be 0.5 millimeters below the allowed limit.”

It then justifies itself as follows: “Charles followed a one-stop strategy today, which caused a very high tire consumption, causing the F1 car to be underweight. Regarding the floor wear on Lewis’s car, we slightly underestimated the consumption. There was no intention to gain an advantage. We will learn from what happened today and make sure not to repeat the same mistakes in the future.”

Finally, here’s the tedious litany that is now being fed to the most beautiful audience in the world. The one that, after years of suffering, and we are at 17 and counting, continues to fill the stands, read, comment, and support the historic Italian team. At the end of the social media report, here’s what appears: “Clearly, this is not the way we wanted to end our weekend at the Chinese Grand Prix, neither for us nor for our fans, whose support for us is unwavering.”

As for the penalty imposed on car number 16, there’s little to say. We are talking about a mistake acknowledged by the team, mostly justified by the high tire wear from the single stop made with Charles Leclerc’s car. This is a credible reason in Formula 1, as very worn tires can lose up to 1.5 kilograms extra. What is far more interesting, however, is the extra consumption of the floor with car number 44, exceeding the allowed measurements by 0.5 millimeters at the end of the Chinese Grand Prix.

The questions are: why was only Lewis Hamilton’s car over the limit? Two different configurations? An error in calibrating the ride height on Saturday after the Sprint? A choice by the drivers based on their feelings and connection with the car? Let’s start with a fact that must be clarified beforehand. In general, in order to prevent the car’s vertical oscillations from being too noticeable between a full and empty tank, nonlinear responses are sought from the damping elements of the suspension.

This means that beyond a certain imposed load point, the response of the suspension tries to be as similar as possible. Obviously, we are talking about an ideal measure that finds a response on the track up to a certain point. Keeping this in mind, after free practice and before the qualifying session, all teams still raise the cars slightly for the race. The reason is mainly related to the weight due to the large amount of fuel on board.

This parameter is calculated in newtons and varies the forces acting on the car. Let’s give an example to explain the idea. In a 300-kilometer race, up to 110 kilograms of fuel is loaded, while in the Sprint, it can be around 30. Adding this so called “ballast” to the total weight of the car causes the vehicle, in terms of force, to approach the reference plane, namely the track surface, only to gradually rise again as the fuel is consumed.

Now, calculating the difference between the Sprint Race and the classic Sunday race, a Formula 1 car will lower by a third with the same heights. Using the same ride height for both races, in the 100 kilometer competition, the car will be higher from the start. Since last season, the International Federation allows modifications before the second qualifying session. According to the information collected and reported by various Italian news media outlets, the Ferrari technicians raised the car after the Sprint Race, but evidently not enough.

It must be said that we are talking about 0.5 millimeters. A really minimal distance to which a plausible explanation can be given: Charles Leclerc chose a slightly stiffer setup than Lewis Hamilton, an element we clarified and confirmed in the analysis related to the setup tweaks, observing the different behavior of the two cars via telemetry. A car that runs with a higher stiffness will have a more stable platform, less prone to floor excursions.

During the lap, therefore, the car will more rarely touch the track surface and, consequently, will consume the plank less. On the other hand, Lewis Hamilton’s slightly softer setup accentuated the floor’s oscillations, contributing to the wear. Half a millimeter may seem like a trivial matter, but in Formula One, it makes a difference. Therefore, we cannot talk about a different choice on the basic ground clearance, which they confirmed was the same, even considering the issues in managing the SF-25 car’s load.

This fact is compounded by another element related to the damage on Charles Leclerc’s car. Car number 16, after the contact with Lewis Hamilton’s single-seater in the first lap of the Chinese Grand Prix, had a load deficit between 20 and 30 points. Despite the fact that this is not an excessive loss, it can still contribute to reducing the car’s downforce. Less load limits the vertical push of the floor towards the track surface and, as a result, the plank’s consumption through contact with the reference plane.