Ferrari SF-25

[dialtone]

Was just wondering, if a team can add more titanium blocks beside or in to the plank, to prevent plank wear?
There are already such blocks there, but are they allowed to add more?
IF they truly have the excessive plank wear issue, such simple brute force solution can help...

wrong thread for this. and no they can't add more and also it's not plank wear.

[Mattchu]

Was just wondering, if a team can add more titanium blocks beside or in to the plank, to prevent plank wear?
There are already such blocks there, but are they allowed to add more?
IF they truly have the excessive plank wear issue, such simple brute force solution can help...

Id be amazed if all the teams aren`t using the full quota of skid blocks as described in the regulations. Here is the relevant section from the 2025 regs.

The following provisions apply to the skids. The lower surface of the plank may be fitted with
flush mounted metal skids which:

k. May only be fitted in place of plank material.
l. Have a total area no greater than 24000mm² when viewed from below.
m. Are no greater than 4000mm² in area individually when viewed from below.
n. Are fitted in order that their entire lower surfaces are visible from below.
o. Must have a minimum cross sectional thickness of 15mm across its external boundaries
in plan view

I think there used to be a rule of 3 only, but I can`t see anything about a specific number now!

[sucof]

Was just wondering, if a team can add more titanium blocks beside or in to the plank, to prevent plank wear?
There are already such blocks there, but are they allowed to add more?
IF they truly have the excessive plank wear issue, such simple brute force solution can help...

Id be amazed if all the teams aren`t using the full quota of skid blocks as described in the regulations. Here is the relevant section from the 2025 regs.

The following provisions apply to the skids. The lower surface of the plank may be fitted with
flush mounted metal skids which:

k. May only be fitted in place of plank material.
l. Have a total area no greater than 24000mm² when viewed from below.
m. Are no greater than 4000mm² in area individually when viewed from below.
n. Are fitted in order that their entire lower surfaces are visible from below.
o. Must have a minimum cross sectional thickness of 15mm across its external boundaries
in plan view

I think there used to be a rule of 3 only, but I can`t see anything about a specific number now!

Thank you for your constructive reply!

[sucof]

Was just wondering, if a team can add more titanium blocks beside or in to the plank, to prevent plank wear?
There are already such blocks there, but are they allowed to add more?
IF they truly have the excessive plank wear issue, such simple brute force solution can help...

wrong thread for this. and no they can't add more and also it's not plank wear.

While the other person gave a constructive reply, you did not, and is also highly arrogant.
You do not know per se if "it is plank wear" so do not be so cocky about it. Also, could you tell me why this is not the correct thread for this?
If you will be like this, do not even bother responding, thanks.

[dialtone]

Was just wondering, if a team can add more titanium blocks beside or in to the plank, to prevent plank wear?
There are already such blocks there, but are they allowed to add more?
IF they truly have the excessive plank wear issue, such simple brute force solution can help...

wrong thread for this. and no they can't add more and also it's not plank wear.

While the other person gave a constructive reply, you did not, and is also highly arrogant.
You do not know per se if "it is plank wear" so do not be so cocky about it. Also, could you tell me why this is not the correct thread for this?
If you will be like this, do not even bother responding, thanks.

I do in fact know it's not plank wear.

[SB15]

wrong thread for this. and no they can't add more and also it's not plank wear.

While the other person gave a constructive reply, you did not, and is also highly arrogant.
You do not know per se if "it is plank wear" so do not be so cocky about it. Also, could you tell me why this is not the correct thread for this?
If you will be like this, do not even bother responding, thanks.

I do in fact know it's not plank wear.

Why would Ferrari raise the tyre pressure if the issue wasn't plank wear and then Leclerc was basically lifting at turn 1 on every lap during his 2nd stint? I think someone mentioned Lewis was doing LiCo by lap 3.

So honestly if Ferrari did run at an adequate ride height that keeps it in a consistent performance window, how slow are they really?

[dialtone]

While the other person gave a constructive reply, you did not, and is also highly arrogant.
You do not know per se if "it is plank wear" so do not be so cocky about it. Also, could you tell me why this is not the correct thread for this?
If you will be like this, do not even bother responding, thanks.

I do in fact know it's not plank wear.

Why would Ferrari raise the tyre pressure if the issue wasn't plank wear and then Leclerc was basically lifting at turn 1 on every lap during his 2nd stint? I think someone mentioned Lewis was doing LiCo by lap 3.

So honestly if Ferrari did run at an adequate ride height that keeps it in a consistent performance window, how slow are they really?

This is not the right thread for speculation.

Russell is the only one that talked about raising tire pressure. No reliable source talked about it. That’s a totally made up fact until a reliable source confirms that it happened, until then it didn’t happen and the data supports that it didn’t happen, and I've already posted enough about this in the appropriate thread for this topic so at some point people should engage in the conversation there and counter the arguments.

[sucof]

wrong thread for this. and no they can't add more and also it's not plank wear.

While the other person gave a constructive reply, you did not, and is also highly arrogant.
You do not know per se if "it is plank wear" so do not be so cocky about it. Also, could you tell me why this is not the correct thread for this?
If you will be like this, do not even bother responding, thanks.

I do in fact know it's not plank wear.

Uhm, then name your exact source please.
I read your other comment where you again tell people this is not the correct thread... are you an admin perhaps?
Could you PLEASE act normally and not be completely self assured, while having ZERO jurisdiction and ZERO actual knowledge from the team itself????
Thank you.

[Brahmal]

https://www.planetf1.com/features/nsfw- ... -laid-bare

[deadhead]

[matteosc]

I do in fact know it's not plank wear.

Why would Ferrari raise the tyre pressure if the issue wasn't plank wear and then Leclerc was basically lifting at turn 1 on every lap during his 2nd stint? I think someone mentioned Lewis was doing LiCo by lap 3.

So honestly if Ferrari did run at an adequate ride height that keeps it in a consistent performance window, how slow are they really?

This is not the right thread for speculation.

Russell is the only one that talked about raising tire pressure. No reliable source talked about it. That’s a totally made up fact until a reliable source confirms that it happened, until then it didn’t happen and the data supports that it didn’t happen, and I've already posted enough about this in the appropriate thread for this topic so at some point people should engage in the conversation there and counter the arguments.

As this is not the right thread for speculation, you should not state that it was not plank wear. Despite your claim that "you know" that it was something else, your statement is actually a speculation.

[Seanspeed]

This is not the right thread for speculation.

Russell is the only one that talked about raising tire pressure. No reliable source talked about it. That’s a totally made up fact until a reliable source confirms that it happened, until then it didn’t happen and the data supports that it didn’t happen, and I've already posted enough about this in the appropriate thread for this topic so at some point people should engage in the conversation there and counter the arguments.

"It's ok for me to pass off my speculation as fact, but not others". You dont KNOW that the plank wear thing isn't a problem, but you've said you know this anyways. This is also passing off your own speculation as fact. Ferrari are themselves being super cagey about all this, so all that people can do is speculate.

Your posts are usually good, but this one isn't going down well for me. I also dont understand why this thread wouldn't be a place to discuss potential technical issues with the car. Vanja himself is regularly making speculation posts about what he thinks is going on, but you've never complained about it. If we can have speculative discussions about the technical aspects of the positives of the car, why not the negatives?

[dialtone]

This is not the right thread for speculation.

Russell is the only one that talked about raising tire pressure. No reliable source talked about it. That’s a totally made up fact until a reliable source confirms that it happened, until then it didn’t happen and the data supports that it didn’t happen, and I've already posted enough about this in the appropriate thread for this topic so at some point people should engage in the conversation there and counter the arguments.

"It's ok for me to pass off my speculation as fact, but not others". You dont KNOW that the plank wear thing isn't a problem, but you've said you know this anyways. This is also passing off your own speculation as fact. Ferrari are themselves being super cagey about all this, so all that people can do is speculate.

Your posts are usually good, but this one isn't going down well for me. I also dont understand why this thread wouldn't be a place to discuss potential technical issues with the car. Vanja himself is regularly making speculation posts about what he thinks is going on, but you've never complained about it. If we can have speculative discussions about the technical aspects of the positives of the car, why not the negatives?

I think this thread is about the car specifically. Pics of it and the engineering around it. And facts most of all. Speculation belongs in the other thread. So if people want to put content here that explains the engineering behind the plank wear issue, I think that would be appropriate, but discussion of the behavior of the team during a race belongs in the team thread. This is how I understand the content policy of these threads at least.

When I wrote “I know” I was being provocative because the crowd claiming it was plank wear did it with no information at all, and that is frustrating in an engineering forum and in this thread in particular. Sorry about the post not being good, but Russell was speculating by his own admission, not sure how saying so classifies as speculation.

EDIT: to be clear, I never said don't speculate to anyone here, I said go to the other thread to do it if no data or reasoning or technical content is provided. And as I wrote, the news was speculation until confirmed by reliable source.

[Seanspeed]

I think this thread is about the car specifically. Pics of it and the engineering around it. And facts most of all. Speculation belongs in the other thread. So if people want to put content here that explains the engineering behind the plank wear issue, I think that would be appropriate, but discussion of the behavior of the team during a race belongs in the team thread. This is how I understand the content policy of these threads at least.

When I wrote “I know” I was being provocative because the crowd claiming it was plank wear did it with no information at all, and that is frustrating in an engineering forum and in this thread in particular. Sorry about the post not being good, but Russell was speculating by his own admission, not sure how saying so classifies as speculation.

EDIT: to be clear, I never said don't speculate to anyone here, I said go to the other thread to do it if no data or reasoning or technical content is provided. And as I wrote, the news was speculation until confirmed by reliable source.

Again, Vanja's posts are almost always nothing but 100% speculation and I've never seen you complain about it. In fact, it's almost impossible to talk about these cars in any technical sense without it being inherently speculative because unless you're a Ferrari aerodynamicist that actually worked on these things specifically, you just DONT KNOW, and nothing can actually be FACT.

If we were to limit this topic to things we can only prove as fact, it'd have to be limited to objectively noticeably photos showing visual differences and nothing more. Nobody would be allowed to talk about what they think those changes might mean or anything, cuz that's all speculative.

Also, as far as the specific context here, there was plenty of technical context surrounding the theory about tire pressures. Just because that person didn't provide the whole thesis themselves doesn't mean you and I and others weren't well aware of what they were talking about. And it was terrible form that because you disagreed with the thesis, you chose to attack them on the validity of even bringing up the topic at all, rather than what they were bringing up. Again, I usually appreciate your posts, but this was not constructive behavior.

[dialtone]

If we were to limit this topic to things we can only prove as fact, it'd have to be limited to objectively noticeably photos showing visual differences and nothing more. Nobody would be allowed to talk about what they think those changes might mean or anything, cuz that's all speculative.

Also, as far as the specific context here, there was plenty of technical context surrounding the theory about tire pressures. Just because that person didn't provide the whole thesis themselves doesn't mean you and I and others weren't well aware of what they were talking about. And it was terrible form that because you disagreed with the thesis, you chose to attack them on the validity of even bringing up the topic at all, rather than what they were bringing up. Again, I usually appreciate your posts, but this was not constructive behavior.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Vanja brings data, other user didn't and in fact asked a question about speculation. My agreement or disagreement has nothing to do with saying it should be in the other thread, I've pointed out before OT conversations, this wasn't related to my agreement any more than the other times.

I think we've discussed this enough and is now time to let it go, even if it was on topic.