FERRARI'S DEBACLE FROM A PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVE

The Chinese Grand Prix could have offered plenty to analyze, but in reality, it all came down to tire management. Graining on the mediums, degradation on the hards—that was the story of the race. There were a few battles in the midfield thanks to different strategies, while at the front, Max Verstappen fought his way back to overtake Leclerc in the closing stages after struggling to match the pace of Ferrari, McLaren, and Russell for much of the race. The fact that Leclerc managed to finish with a damaged front wing without a significant drop in performance speaks volumes about how narrow the performance gaps were on track.

The real story—the Ferrari disaster in China—has sparked intense debate in the Formula 1 world, with criticism, analysis, and speculation spreading rapidly. Beyond the controversies, the key issue to examine is the gap between the performance shown on track and the reasons behind the disqualifications.

A crucial factor is the sprint race weekend format, which heavily penalizes teams. With only one practice session before qualifying and races, data collection is limited, forcing teams into conservative strategies. In China, this setup particularly hindered Ferrari, which is still trying to fully understand the potential of the SF-25. The lack of opportunity to test the hard tires influenced the team's decisions, leaving them to operate in uncertainty.

Another controversial aspect concerns the car's ride height. It has long been debated whether raising the car would improve its competitiveness. However, Hamilton's disqualification for the same issue raises questions: if this was the main problem, why did the British driver's Ferrari underperform in the main race despite not being raised? The team experimented with a different setup, which ultimately did not yield the expected results. The decision to try new solutions even after dominating the Sprint seems to be the key factor in this situation.

For Ferrari, the real challenge remains understanding the SF-25. The radical change in design philosophy, while aimed at improvement, requires a period of adaptation. However, this decision comes after a 2024 season in which the team competed for the Constructors' Championship—a bold move that could be a double-edged sword. Whether this strategy will bring benefits or result in lost ground remains to be seen.

Finally, a note on Leclerc. The damage to his front wing has been widely discussed, but the team's decision not to replace it during the pit stop suggests that the impact on performance was minimal. In these cars, race pace is far from the absolute limit, and a slight loss of downforce does not significantly affect speed. What stands out more clearly is how frequently Leclerc and Hamilton have come into contact on track—three incidents in two races. Perhaps the Monegasque driver perceives this rivalry as more crucial to his reputation than the seven-time world champion, who is likely more focused on securing a competitive car rather than engaging in a direct battle with a single opponent.

© Simone Marchetti Cavalieri