2025 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team

[ScuderiaLeo]

Imo, Ferrari's fundamental problem is that members of the team are not allowed to criticize the team or the company. Fred's comments about the strategy in Miami are a perfect example He basically said "we did everything correctly", and That's about as fare from the truth as you can get.

They were incredibly slow and indecisive, not being able to admit that, learn from it and move on is exactly what is wrong. You don't have to blame specific people, but you need to admit to the obvious.

The drivers criticize the team all the time. Maybe they don't say "this team sucks" like some people want them to but over the past two years they have been pretty open about their disappointment when the team does something wrong.

[Emag]

You say “history is history,” but you’re the one leaning on a decade old narrative that Ferrari’s location is holding them back. The problem with this UK "Silicon Valley" analogy is that it oversimplifies the very complexity you say you respect. If raw proximity to engineers was the magic formula, then every team within a 50 mile radius of Brackley should be dominating, or at least not languishing at the back.

You mentioned Ferrari struggles with talent “lower in the hierarchy,” but that just shifts the goalposts. If Maranello can attract top tier minds, you’re implying those same minds are incapable of building or managing effective engineering pipelines beneath them. That’s not a location issue... It’s either poor leadership, bad structure, or outdated process. Again, not geography, but execution. The claim that the UK has a magical surplus of better junior engineers sounds more like a romanticized view of the F1 tech scene than a grounded analysis.

Ferrari’s ability to stay in the fight across generations despite upheaval proves they don’t need UK zip codes to stay relevant... They just need sharper internal execution. Location is an excuse. Champions are built, not found on maps.

I am sorry, but what do you think has been happening since 2009? Tell me one team since then that won the wcc/wdc whose factory wasn’t based somewhere in the UK.

There is no shift in goalpost. If you go read back the first comment I was pretty clear in what I meant. In fact, the main point was to specifically diminish the role headline names have on overall performance.

What you say about the “big names” being incapable of managing effective engineering pipelines continues to suggest that you too believe one person can turn a whole team around. It doesn’t matter how good the guy at the top is, he will lose the game if the team beneath him is not as capable as the opposition.

Put Ronaldo or Messi in a B tier team, do you think they alone can carry those teams to championships? It’s the same thing in F1, but the team doesn’t have 11 members, rather hundreds.

And your words are self-contradicting. How could Ferrari perform consistently at the top if their execution was as bad as you think it is?

[Silent Storm]

You say “history is history,” but you’re the one leaning on a decade old narrative that Ferrari’s location is holding them back. The problem with this UK "Silicon Valley" analogy is that it oversimplifies the very complexity you say you respect. If raw proximity to engineers was the magic formula, then every team within a 50 mile radius of Brackley should be dominating, or at least not languishing at the back.

You mentioned Ferrari struggles with talent “lower in the hierarchy,” but that just shifts the goalposts. If Maranello can attract top tier minds, you’re implying those same minds are incapable of building or managing effective engineering pipelines beneath them. That’s not a location issue... It’s either poor leadership, bad structure, or outdated process. Again, not geography, but execution. The claim that the UK has a magical surplus of better junior engineers sounds more like a romanticized view of the F1 tech scene than a grounded analysis.

Ferrari’s ability to stay in the fight across generations despite upheaval proves they don’t need UK zip codes to stay relevant... They just need sharper internal execution. Location is an excuse. Champions are built, not found on maps.

I am sorry, but what do you think has been happening since 2009? Tell me one team since then that won the wcc/wdc whose factory wasn’t based somewhere in the UK.

There is no shift in goalpost. If you go read back the first comment I was pretty clear in what I meant. In fact, the main point was to specifically diminish the role headline names have on overall performance.

What you say about the “big names” being incapable of managing effective engineering pipelines continues to suggest that you too believe one person can turn a whole team around. It doesn’t matter how good the guy at the top is, he will lose the game if the team beneath him is not as capable as the opposition.

Put Ronaldo or Messi in a B tier team, do you think they alone can carry those teams to championships? It’s the same thing in F1, but the team doesn’t have 11 members, rather hundreds.

And your words are self-contradicting. How could Ferrari perform consistently at the top if their execution was as bad as you think it is?

That’s precisely the problem with your framing... You’re treating geographic clustering as causal rather than correlated. Yes, the recent title winning teams are UK based, but that’s not because the soil in Northamptonshire breeds better engineers. It’s because investment, opportunity, and momentum created a talent magnet there over time. But that doesn’t mean Ferrari’s pool is inherently weaker... Only that they have to work harder to consolidate it. And if you’re arguing Ferrari is a “top 3” team with a weaker lower tier engineering structure, doesn’t that actually highlight how efficient their execution is?

And your Messi/Ronaldo metaphor? Cute, but flawed. Ferrari isn’t a B tier team... They’ve built front running cars, out developed rivals mid season, and introduced innovations others have followed. If they were truly handicapped by talent shortages at the structural level, they wouldn’t even be in the fight.

As for the accusation that I’m contradicting myself... No, I’m pointing out that Ferrari has consistently delivered competitive cars despite the narrative you’re pushing. You say they’re limited by a shallow talent pool, yet they’re outperforming teams with supposedly deeper benches. That’s not a contradiction on my end... It’s a flaw in your premise.

And no, I don't believe that one person can turn things around, but when a team repeatedly misses the mark, it’s fair to question the leadership shaping that pipeline. One person can’t do everything, but they can absolutely steer everything in the wrong direction.

And if history matters enough for you to list UK based winners since 2009, then maybe “history isn’t history” after all, yeah?

[dialtone]

And your words are self-contradicting. How could Ferrari perform consistently at the top if their execution was as bad as you think it is?

Yeah. That Ferrari technical execution is fine one just needs to look at WEC, think what you will of BOP but 499P and 296 GT3 are crazy good cars. Mr. Franz with the choice of any brand out there settled on a 296 as well.

They are taking risks, some don’t pay off, I’m not gonna sit on that forever, I want the team to do that, give me another 2019 engine in 2026.

[MattLightBlue]

I will try to give my 2 cents on the talents matter, given that I worked as a parts supplier of GeS for like 8 years (engine parts mostly), and several times I have been in their facilities and talked to buyers and technical direction.

1. The issue is not lack of brilliant minds at lower level. What I see as a problem is that a talented young engineer struggles to go higher in hierarchy because a lot of older characters that stay there since long time. I am talking about just lower than chief officers.

2. Sometimes the same “old people” have economic interest in a supplier, or a new software license, even in the people they bring in. They, in other words, influence the technical decisions.
Bit by bit this approach can destroy development efficiency.

Ferrari Team is a mirror of what is going on business wise in the Italian country.

[Emag]

That’s precisely the problem with your framing... You’re treating geographic clustering as causal rather than correlated. Yes, the recent title winning teams are UK based, but that’s not because the soil in Northamptonshire breeds better engineers. It’s because investment, opportunity, and momentum created a talent magnet there over time. But that doesn’t mean Ferrari’s pool is inherently weaker... Only that they have to work harder to consolidate it. And if you’re arguing Ferrari is a “top 3” team with a weaker lower tier engineering structure, doesn’t that actually highlight how efficient their execution is?

And your Messi/Ronaldo metaphor? Cute, but flawed. Ferrari isn’t a B tier team... They’ve built front running cars, out developed rivals mid season, and introduced innovations others have followed. If they were truly handicapped by talent shortages at the structural level, they wouldn’t even be in the fight.

As for the accusation that I’m contradicting myself... No, I’m pointing out that Ferrari has consistently delivered competitive cars despite the narrative you’re pushing. You say they’re limited by a shallow talent pool, yet they’re outperforming teams with supposedly deeper benches. That’s not a contradiction on my end... It’s a flaw in your premise.

And no, I don't believe that one person can turn things around, but when a team repeatedly misses the mark, it’s fair to question the leadership shaping that pipeline. One person can’t do everything, but they can absolutely steer everything in the wrong direction.

And if history matters enough for you to list UK based winners since 2009, then maybe “history isn’t history” after all, yeah?

Yeah, I don't know why you took this so personally. Your first paragraph is just nonsense and you're actually arguing against points you raised yourself while simultaneously agreeing with what I was saying. Also, please stop taking the metaphors at face value. They're called metaphores for a reason.

And again, you keep bringing up points that contradict your own words :

The real issue isn’t location... It’s cohesion, direction, and sometimes internal politics. When that aligns, Ferrari shows they can go toe to toe with anyone in the pit lane.

So which one is it then, make up your mind. Does Ferrari have top tier technical capacity at all hierarchical levels but poor execution, or an average level of technical capacity but great execution?

As for the history bit, fair point, but listing past winners isn't the same as saying history determines everything that comes next. My point was just that while history exists, it shouldn't be used as the main argument for what's going to happen in the future. Context matters, and in this case, it doesn't help your point either.

[Silent Storm]

That’s precisely the problem with your framing... You’re treating geographic clustering as causal rather than correlated. Yes, the recent title winning teams are UK based, but that’s not because the soil in Northamptonshire breeds better engineers. It’s because investment, opportunity, and momentum created a talent magnet there over time. But that doesn’t mean Ferrari’s pool is inherently weaker... Only that they have to work harder to consolidate it. And if you’re arguing Ferrari is a “top 3” team with a weaker lower tier engineering structure, doesn’t that actually highlight how efficient their execution is?

And your Messi/Ronaldo metaphor? Cute, but flawed. Ferrari isn’t a B tier team... They’ve built front running cars, out developed rivals mid season, and introduced innovations others have followed. If they were truly handicapped by talent shortages at the structural level, they wouldn’t even be in the fight.

As for the accusation that I’m contradicting myself... No, I’m pointing out that Ferrari has consistently delivered competitive cars despite the narrative you’re pushing. You say they’re limited by a shallow talent pool, yet they’re outperforming teams with supposedly deeper benches. That’s not a contradiction on my end... It’s a flaw in your premise.

And no, I don't believe that one person can turn things around, but when a team repeatedly misses the mark, it’s fair to question the leadership shaping that pipeline. One person can’t do everything, but they can absolutely steer everything in the wrong direction.

And if history matters enough for you to list UK based winners since 2009, then maybe “history isn’t history” after all, yeah?

Yeah, I don't know why you took this so personally. Your first paragraph is just nonsense and you're actually arguing against points you raised yourself while simultaneously agreeing with what I was saying. Also, please stop taking the metaphors at face value. They're called metaphores for a reason.

And again, you keep bringing up points that contradict your own words :

The real issue isn’t location... It’s cohesion, direction, and sometimes internal politics. When that aligns, Ferrari shows they can go toe to toe with anyone in the pit lane.

So which one is it then, make up your mind. Does Ferrari have top tier technical capacity at all hierarchical levels but poor execution, or an average level of technical capacity but great execution?

As for the history bit, fair point, but listing past winners isn't the same as saying history determines everything that comes next. My point was just that while history exists, it shouldn't be used as the main argument for what's going to happen in the future. Context matters, and in this case, it doesn't help your point either.

Appreciate the concern... But I assure you, this isn’t personal. If you read intent into tone, that’s on you.

You keep repeating that I’m contradicting myself, when really, you’re oversimplifying what’s a layered point: Ferrari has world class tools and talent on paper, but systemic inefficiencies, hierarchical bottlenecks, internal politics, occasional misalignment basically undermine the full potential. That’s not contradiction, that’s nuance. A fast car doesn’t guarantee a win if the pit strategy’s flawed.

You also asked me to “make up my mind" but ironically, that framing assumes a binary world where teams are either flawless or failures. That’s not clarity... it’s reductionism.

And your metaphor defense is noted... But if a metaphor is used to simplify a flawed comparison, it’s fair game to challenge it.

You wanted clarity, so here it is: Ferrari has both the technical firepower and structural baggage. When the latter is managed, they fight at the front. When it’s not, they stumble. That doesn’t contradict itself, it reflects the reality of complex organizations.

Also, if a metaphor can’t survive scrutiny, it’s not a metaphor... it’s a crutch. When someone calls nuance a contradiction, it usually means the nuance hit too close to home.

I’ve explained nuance, not everyone’s built to process it. I’ll leave you to keep chasing contradictions where there are none, seems like you’ve got the time. I don't.

[Emag]

Appreciate the concern... But I assure you, this isn’t personal. If you read intent into tone, that’s on you.

You keep repeating that I’m contradicting myself, when really, you’re oversimplifying what’s a layered point: Ferrari has world class tools and talent on paper, but systemic inefficiencies, hierarchical bottlenecks, internal politics, occasional misalignment basically undermine the full potential. That’s not contradiction, that’s nuance. A fast car doesn’t guarantee a win if the pit strategy’s flawed.

You also asked me to “make up my mind" but ironically, that framing assumes a binary world where teams are either flawless or failures. That’s not clarity... it’s reductionism.

And your metaphor defense is noted... But if a metaphor is used to simplify a flawed comparison, it’s fair game to challenge it.

You wanted clarity, so here it is: Ferrari has both the technical firepower and structural baggage. When the latter is managed, they fight at the front. When it’s not, they stumble. That doesn’t contradict itself, it reflects the reality of complex organizations.

Also, if a metaphor can’t survive scrutiny, it’s not a metaphor... it’s a crutch. When someone calls nuance a contradiction, it usually means the nuance hit too close to home.

I’ve explained nuance, not everyone’s built to process it. I’ll leave you to keep chasing contradictions where there are none, seems like you’ve got the time. I don't.

Firstly:
You double down on my point about history being irrelevant, yet rely on past successes to argue Ferrari’s location isn’t a disadvantage.

Secondly:
You claim geography doesn’t matter, but then acknowledge Ferrari has to work harder because they’re outside the UK talent cluster.

Thirdly:
You say talent isn’t the issue, then debate the strength of Ferrari’s engineering hierarchy and its impact on performance.

Fourthly:
You praise Ferrari’s bold innovation, but later argue their main problem is poor execution and leadership.

Hitting me with the classic “you just can’t process nuance” closer, always a convenient retreat when the contradictions stack too high. You’ve written essays looping around your own logic, yet somehow haven’t directly addressed the central point I made. If you don’t have time, maybe stop debating a point you still haven’t dismantled, and definitely don’t confuse verbose backpedaling with intellectual depth.

[DJ Downforce]

Both of you need to get a sense of perspective. The two points can be true at the same time.

Maybe Ferrari don't get the absolute best up and coming engineers, but their results show that this hasn't hindered them completely. If not for a few crashes last year - Ferrari would've had the WCC, seems pretty good to me.

You guys should join me in the balanced camp, not the two extremes.

[Emag]

Both of you need to get a sense of perspective. The two points can be true at the same time.

Maybe Ferrari don't get the absolute best up and coming engineers, but their results show that this hasn't hindered them completely. If not for a few crashes last year - Ferrari would've had the WCC, seems pretty good to me.

You guys should join me in the balanced camp, not the two extremes.

I didn't really claim it hinders them completely. You can read back my first comment, I only mentioned Ferrari is at a disadvantage. I didn't say Ferrari is severely handicapped. In an effort to diminish that point, the other person tried to provide arguments that don't even align with his opposing view under closer inspection. Then I point that out, and he gets lost in a spiral of counter-arguments that go back to negate his initial statements, and then blames my inability to comprehend his genius-level nuance.

[ringo]

A UK location would benefit Ferrari.
It can looked on from that point of view.
Be it an aero or chassis dynamics office. It must benefit them. They really are isolated in Italy. Without getting into a long discussion, having more exposure and diversity to the hub of F1, the UK must rub off some benefits in new knowledge and the latest techniques.

[bluechris]

A UK location would benefit Ferrari.
It can looked on from that point of view.
Be it an aero or chassis dynamics office. It must benefit them. They really are isolated in Italy. Without getting into a long discussion, having more exposure and diversity to the hub of F1, the UK must rub off some benefits in new knowledge and the latest techniques.

Ferrari maybe but the overall Italian progress on designers, engineers, aerodynamists etc NO...

[Silent Storm]

Appreciate the concern... But I assure you, this isn’t personal. If you read intent into tone, that’s on you.

You keep repeating that I’m contradicting myself, when really, you’re oversimplifying what’s a layered point: Ferrari has world class tools and talent on paper, but systemic inefficiencies, hierarchical bottlenecks, internal politics, occasional misalignment basically undermine the full potential. That’s not contradiction, that’s nuance. A fast car doesn’t guarantee a win if the pit strategy’s flawed.

You also asked me to “make up my mind" but ironically, that framing assumes a binary world where teams are either flawless or failures. That’s not clarity... it’s reductionism.

And your metaphor defense is noted... But if a metaphor is used to simplify a flawed comparison, it’s fair game to challenge it.

You wanted clarity, so here it is: Ferrari has both the technical firepower and structural baggage. When the latter is managed, they fight at the front. When it’s not, they stumble. That doesn’t contradict itself, it reflects the reality of complex organizations.

Also, if a metaphor can’t survive scrutiny, it’s not a metaphor... it’s a crutch. When someone calls nuance a contradiction, it usually means the nuance hit too close to home.

I’ve explained nuance, not everyone’s built to process it. I’ll leave you to keep chasing contradictions where there are none, seems like you’ve got the time. I don't.

Firstly:
You double down on my point about history being irrelevant, yet rely on past successes to argue Ferrari’s location isn’t a disadvantage.

Secondly:
You claim geography doesn’t matter, but then acknowledge Ferrari has to work harder because they’re outside the UK talent cluster.

Thirdly:
You say talent isn’t the issue, then debate the strength of Ferrari’s engineering hierarchy and its impact on performance.

Fourthly:
You praise Ferrari’s bold innovation, but later argue their main problem is poor execution and leadership.

Hitting me with the classic “you just can’t process nuance” closer, always a convenient retreat when the contradictions stack too high. You’ve written essays looping around your own logic, yet somehow haven’t directly addressed the central point I made. If you don’t have time, maybe stop debating a point you still haven’t dismantled, and definitely don’t confuse verbose backpedaling with intellectual depth.

1) Using history to show that Ferrari’s location hasn’t prevented innovation is not the same as saying history guarantees future results. That’s context, not a prophecy.

2) Saying geography isn’t decisive doesn't mean it’s irrelevant. A disadvantage isn’t always a dealbreaker, it’s just something that needs to be worked around, which Ferrari often has. That’s the point you keep dodging.

3) Talent and hierarchy coexist. You can have incredible engineers undermined by internal politics. That doesn’t negate the talent, it exposes structural friction.

4) Bold innovation and poor execution can absolutely live under the same roof. F1 is full of brilliant concepts lost in the pit wall or strategy room. If you think the presence of one cancels out the other, you’re not arguing complexity... You’re filtering it out.

If it feels like my points are “looping,” it’s probably because you’re circling around them without actually addressing what’s being said. That’s not on me... Critiquing tone and structure while dodging substance isn’t debate, it’s deflection. You’re not dismantling arguments, you’re proofreading them.

Nuance isn’t a retreat... It’s a level you haven’t stepped up to yet, and if that looks like backpedaling to you, maybe you’re not chasing answers... Just a win.

[Space-heat]

There was no ridiculousness in miami. At best they shouldn’t have asked charles to let lewis through, but they weren’t going to pass Ant anyway.

Disagree on the Ant thing.

I think there has been some solid analysis showing they lost significant time for Charles and Lewis. If they had just sacrificed Lewis, Charles would have been in a strong position to catch Kimi.

https://x.com/AeroTechVH/status/1919323307431620972

They should have discussed with Charles the pace he had in hand pre-switch. The first communication (as far as I remember) was to move aside. Regardless it was for P6-P7, maybe the gesture of allowing Lewis a chance is the better move long term to keep everyone on board.

[Silent Storm]

Both of you need to get a sense of perspective. The two points can be true at the same time.

Maybe Ferrari don't get the absolute best up and coming engineers, but their results show that this hasn't hindered them completely. If not for a few crashes last year - Ferrari would've had the WCC, seems pretty good to me.

You guys should join me in the balanced camp, not the two extremes.

Fair take... And you’re right, two things can be true. Ferrari’s not crippled by location, and they’re also not coasting on privilege.

As for emag... He’s busy reverse engineering his own comment history like it’s sacred scripture, just to prove he never used the word “handicapped.” We get it. When your argument’s foundation starts to crack, retreat into semantics and hope nobody notices the smoke.

And let’s be honest... If pointing out a layered issue makes someone “spiral,” maybe the real issue isn’t comprehension… it’s ego bruised by nuance. If that’s the bar, maybe nuance isn’t the problem... Attention span is.