Ride height, stiffness, suspension needing updates. In these early months of the 2025 Formula 1 season, these have been the most talked-about aspects related to the problems of the SF25, with a mix of topics that are not always easy to disentangle. At first glance, some mechanisms might seem simple: with these regulations, the lower a car is to the ground, the better, since the closer proximity to the asphalt increases aerodynamic downforce from the floor, thereby improving grip. Ferrari is forced to use a ride height higher than optimal to avoid disqualification.
All simple at first glance, enough to raise more than a few questions about how such errors could have been made beforehand and why it is so difficult to fix them now. We therefore wanted to delve a bit deeper into the issue, which is actually a very broad topic, aiming to explain why there is such a criticality around it, why it’s so difficult to solve, and to highlight that, in reality, this does not trouble only the Maranello team but also prevents (almost) all teams from fully exploiting the aerodynamic potential of their single-seaters.
Ride height as a function of speed and suspension stiffness
The first concept to keep in mind is that the vertical forces acting on the car are interdependent. Aerodynamic downforce tends to “push” the car downwards, and the more it succeeds, the more downforce is generated. The opposing force comes from the suspension, with the car finding a balance point between this compression force and the response of the elastic suspension elements (both the torsional springs used in F1 and the well-known “third element” that connects the suspension on both sides, managing vertical paired movements). Naturally, the suspension’s response depends on the level of compression, in a constant back-and-forth of action and reaction. The balance point is what determines the ride height. Since minimum speeds at mid-corner during qualifying are higher than during race pace—by 15–25 kilometers per hour depending on the corner—cars generally run with significantly lower ride heights in qualifying compared to the race. But that’s not all.
To optimize performance, ideally, the suspension should be softer at low speeds. This allows for better curb handling and traction mechanically, and aerodynamically it allows the car to lower and generate more downforce even at low speeds. In high-speed corners, a much stiffer setup is needed—not only to resist the huge aerodynamic load and avoid bottoming out and plank wear, but also to ensure platform stability. This leads to the use of elements with progressive rather than linear stiffness, offering a variable response range depending on compression levels, aiming—if well calibrated—to provide the best dynamic response for each situation.
As for the Maranello team’s car, it is now clear there is a specific struggle on these fronts. The Imola track (and Miami before it) allowed us to observe specific behaviors of the car in various conditions, helping us understand more clearly what, at least in our view, is happening with the cars driven by Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc. The first noticeable aspect is the extreme rear stiffness during qualifying. We repeatedly saw the car landing hard off the curbs at Tamburello and Villeneuve and immediately breaking into oversteer, showing a very stiff suspension response. Overall, it seems that two negative phenomena occur simultaneously in qualifying. On one hand, to minimize car lift, engineers are forced to choose a stiffness range that becomes extremely rigid already at qualifying speeds. On the other hand, this marked stiffness prevents the car from lowering enough in slow corners, resulting in a lack of aerodynamic downforce. There’s also a tire-related factor: we’ve seen that downforce begets more downforce—i.e., a very low car generates more downforce, increasing compression and tire contact patch. Failing to trigger this “virtuous circle” means the tires never reach their ideal operating window, including temperature, carcass deformation, and so on.
In essence, the SF25 in qualifying suffers the worst of all worlds: it runs higher and stiffer than the competition, sacrificing curb absorption and traction, and fails to activate the extra grip of the new soft tires on the flying lap. This affects the whole lap, especially in slow corners, where mechanical grip is limited by such an extreme setup, and aerodynamically the available adjustments for low-speed downforce are largely ineffective. On the other hand, it’s easier to find solutions for high-speed corners, with a stiff setup that still pays off by ensuring platform stability. To compensate for any missing downforce, one can seek supplementary downforce from the upper aerodynamics, perhaps sacrificing some balance or drag, but still minimizing the deficit more easily.
Race pace involves a very different working window
When the SF25 runs in race conditions, cornering speeds are, as mentioned, significantly lower, which means the compression forces on the car are much reduced. This shifts the car’s operating window toward much softer responses, and it seems that—unlike in qualifying—under these conditions, the stiffness range approaches the ideal design target. The car behaves more consistently and predictably, with the whole package—including the tires—entering the ideal performance window. In fact, the aerodynamics, which performed well in wind tunnel tests over the winter, begin to operate in a zone much closer to the intended setup. However, from the suspension response, this “softening” during races appears to be partly the cause of the problem, since to prevent the car from lowering too much and wearing out the plank, engineers are forced to raise it. And this is somewhat the crux of the issue—between suspension geometries that were supposed to limit these loads but clearly don’t, and the available stiffness range that evidently does not allow sufficient compensation. It is no coincidence that reports from the Italian media referred to internal suspension components, suggesting that adjusting the stiffness range could be nearly a definitive solution. However, the same source mentioned a suspension validated in the wind tunnel, a curious detail, since that should not be necessary for just internal components, raising the possibility that rear suspension geometry changes may also be under consideration. We’ll find out in a few weeks.
Ferrari has clearly fallen into this type of issue, with the enormous performance swings witnessed in the early races. But this phenomenon is, in reality, a nightmare for engineers of all teams. It is no accident that the two best cars at the moment, McLaren and Red Bull, are those that somehow manage to best circumvent the issue. McLaren has shown a clear ability to soften the rear without significant floor wear, thanks to particularly effective and stable aerodynamics—but at the cost of a front suspension that Andrea Stella’s engineers are forced to keep very stiff. Hence Lando Norris’s complaints about the car’s drivability and a front end he struggles to feel. Red Bull, on the other hand, with this generation of cars, ensured its platform’s aerodynamic effectiveness (always a high downforce level) by setting extremely high suspension stiffness.
During Max Verstappen’s best qualifying lap at the Imola circuit last weekend, it was very clear how he had to literally avoid the curbs—but at the same time, platform stability and high downforce gave him an “alternate route” that was even faster than the direct one. Many Red Bull drivers in recent years have struggled to handle such an extreme car, particularly Yuki Tsunoda, who lost control of his car after coming off the Tamburello curb, clearly due to the RB21’s very “harsh” and stiff response, crashing into the barriers. Mercedes, meanwhile, introduced a new rear suspension at Imola, and clearly hasn’t yet found the right balance, with a very tough race for both Kimi Antonelli and George Russell.
The Monaco Grand Prix, with its slow corners, curbs, manhole covers, and need for strong traction, represents a nightmare track for those with suspension issues and poor low-speed performance like Ferrari. While McLaren, with its ability to soften the rear, seems well suited, Ferrari might still have two factors working in its favor, at least to limit the gap. First, Monaco has the lowest average speed on the calendar, which limits many of the issues described above. The suspension must be softened, but normally this would come with floor wear problems. Yet the Monaco race is also the shortest of the year—only about 260 kilometers, the only one under 300 kilometers, on a track with negligible fuel consumption, meaning the car will carry much less fuel than usual. This could expand Ferrari’s available setup window, eliminating many of the project’s weaknesses. However, it is hard, if not impossible, to quantify all this, so we will just have to see what happens this weekend in Monte Carlo.
— see video above —
Leave a Reply