2026 Scuderia Ferrari HP F1 Team

This forum contains threads to discuss teams themselves. Anything not technical about the cars, including restructuring, performances etc belongs here.
User avatar
PlatinumZealot
558
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 03:45

Re: 2026 Scuderia Ferrari HP F1 Team

Post

Artur Craft wrote:
26 Jul 2026, 17:48
Emag wrote:
26 Jul 2026, 17:40
It shouldn't be acceptable for RBPT to have a better PU than Ferrari on their first try as a full-on manufacturer. They just need to be better. If you have the best PU and the best chassis, no matter how much bad luck you have, it won't matter anymore.
Being fair to Ferrari. They did do a good job with the engine as well. Mercedes´ is maybe outside the rules and RBPT just humiliated everybody : Audi, Honda and Ferrari

I still struggle to believe how Red Bull were able to pull this off. VW and Stellantis are mega car manufacturers and have several decades of know-how on this. How can a few engineers working in Milton Keynes outsmart these big companies ?
They hired engine engineers from their rivals and unchained them.
🖐️✌️☝️👀👌✍️🐎🏆🙏

Racing Green in 2028

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
558
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 03:45

Re: 2026 Scuderia Ferrari HP F1 Team

Post

Darth-Piekus wrote:
26 Jul 2026, 22:08
deadhead wrote:
26 Jul 2026, 21:31
Ford has noting to do with that RBR engine.

Let’s see what happens with that ADUO2 engine but if McLaren are back on the playing ground this is not looking good.
On their official site they mention that the engine was a collaboration between RB and Ford and they did not do it alone.

But on to the main matter at hand. Ferrari keep racing like amateurs. Instead of helping Lewis they've costed him 20 points from amateurish mistakes. They have to understand that if they want to be champions they have to back up the person who knows how to build a championship winning team.

It sounds harsh on Charles but he's 9 years at Ferrari and has given nothing.
I agree with some of this. The team seems to be listening to him so far. I wont' be surprised with the SF-25 is on par or ahead of Mercedes at the end of the season.
🖐️✌️☝️👀👌✍️🐎🏆🙏

Racing Green in 2028

User avatar
atanatizante
134
Joined: 10 Mar 2011, 15:33

Re: 2026 Scuderia Ferrari HP F1 Team

Post

AR3-GP wrote:
27 Jul 2026, 22:21
atanatizante wrote:
27 Jul 2026, 22:10
[cut]
Your thesis presentation is based on telemetry that exhibits severe data corruption issues (the jagged lines = missing data frames and that makes it 100% useless). There's nothing to extract from it.
Thank you for pointing this out. I noticed the stepped traces, but interpreted them as a consequence of the low sampling rate of the publicly available telemetry rather than missing or corrupted data frames. If they represent missing frames, I agree that the precise speed-delta estimate and any inference concerning super-clipping cannot be supported by these graphs, and I will revise those parts accordingly.

The telemetry was intended to supplement, rather than replace, Anthony Davidson’s independent onboard analysis concerning Straight Mode, Hamilton’s different line through Turn 14, the longer off-throttle period and the subsequent reduction in available battery power.

There is still a broader 2026 energy-management context that may be relevant: drivers can use Boost Mode offensively or defensively, while selectable recharge/deployment maps and Overtake Mode can redistribute electrical energy towards the principal overtaking zone. However, super-clipping itself is largely ECU-controlled according to the selected map, and neither its use nor the cars’ state of charge can be established from these corrupted public traces.

Could you recommend a more reliable telemetry source, or a method of identifying which samples are valid? I would genuinely like to correct the analysis rather than draw conclusions from compromised data.
"I don`t have all the answers. Try Google!"
Jesus

User avatar
atanatizante
134
Joined: 10 Mar 2011, 15:33

Re: 2026 Scuderia Ferrari HP F1 Team

Post

atanatizante wrote:
27 Jul 2026, 22:10

VERSTAPPEN’S PASS ON HAMILTON: WHAT THE TELEMETRY SHOWS AND HOW THE BATTERY DEFICIT DEVELOPED

...
Technical correction and additional strategic context

Following a valid observation concerning the stepped telemetry traces, I need to qualify the conclusions drawn from them. The traces appear to contain missing data frames, so they cannot reliably establish an exact 9–11 kph speed differential, braking points or the presence of super-clipping. Those numerical conclusions should therefore be treated as unverified.

The broader strategic premise nevertheless remains relevant. Under the 2026 regulations, electrical energy can be redistributed around the lap through preconfigured deployment and recharge maps, while the driver can use Boost Mode offensively or defensively. If Verstappen was within one second of Hamilton at the relevant detection point, Overtake Mode would also have provided an additional energy profile and up to 0.5 MJ of extra recharge for the following lap. His eligibility for that mode must, however, be confirmed independently.

At the Hungaroring, concentrating the available deployment towards the start/finish straight and Turn 1 would be strategically logical because this is the circuit’s principal overtaking opportunity. Conversely, Hamilton could defend effectively only if he retained sufficient charge to use an appropriate deployment profile or Boost Mode.

Super-clipping may form part of such an energy-management map: the MGU-K harvests while the driver remains at full throttle, temporarily sacrificing power at the wheels in exchange for stored electrical energy. It is, however, predominantly an ECU-controlled function of the selected map and recharge target—not necessarily a discrete command initiated by the driver. Furthermore, the available public data cannot show whether Verstappen used more super-clipping on the preceding lap or subsequently deployed the recovered energy on the main straight.

Therefore, the strategic hypothesis is plausible but not proven. The strongest surviving evidence remains Davidson’s onboard-based explanation of how Hamilton became electrically vulnerable; the precise size of Verstappen’s speed advantage and the contribution of deployment, Overtake Mode or super-clipping require reliable telemetry or team data.
"I don`t have all the answers. Try Google!"
Jesus

Badger
Badger
46
Joined: 22 Sep 2025, 17:00

Re: 2026 Scuderia Ferrari HP F1 Team

Post

atanatizante wrote:
27 Jul 2026, 22:10
VERSTAPPEN’S PASS ON HAMILTON: WHAT THE TELEMETRY SHOWS AND HOW THE BATTERY DEFICIT DEVELOPED

Max Verstappen’s pass on Lewis Hamilton into Turn 1 at the beginning of lap 16 of the Hungarian Grand Prix initially looked like a straightforward combination of greater straight-line speed and later braking. However, the onboard footage, Sky Sports F1 analysis and publicly available telemetry suggest a more complex explanation involving energy management and Hamilton’s driving sequence on the preceding laps.

1. The initial theory: Hamilton used boost to clear a backmarker

On lap 14, his first lap on the Hard tyres after leaving the pits, Hamilton had to overtake Arvid Lindblad. During the live commentary, David Croft suggested that Lewis might have used “a little press of the boost” — a brief override of the automatic deployment strategy — to complete the pass quickly and reach cleaner air.

Crofty did not present this as a confirmed fact; he explicitly said “maybe”. Nevertheless, the theory was plausible because additional electrical deployment would have consumed part of the available battery energy.

2. Anthony Davidson’s correction: it was not the boost button

Anthony Davidson’s subsequent analysis substantially changes that interpretation. According to Davidson, one of the first thoughts — including from Race Control — was that Hamilton had pressed the boost button. A closer examination of his steering-wheel inputs showed that Lewis had actually operated the Straight Mode control and pressed it again before braking for Turn 12, allowing the active aerodynamic elements to return to their cornering configuration.

In other words, the steering-wheel input was not an activation of boost but an early deactivation of Straight Mode. Davidson also explained that Hamilton was not suffering from the suspected battery deficit at that particular point in the lap.

The problem apparently developed afterwards. The pass on the backmarker unfolded somewhat unexpectedly, Hamilton took a different line through Turn 14 and remained off the throttle for longer than usual. According to Davidson, this allowed the turbo to de-spool. When Hamilton returned to the throttle, bringing the power unit back into its operating range placed an additional demand on the battery. As a result, he no longer had the amount of electrical power normally available and became vulnerable to Verstappen.

Crofty and Davidson therefore do not provide two equally supported explanations. Crofty offered a live hypothesis; Davidson subsequently corrected it using the onboard footage and Hamilton’s steering-wheel inputs.

3. What Hamilton’s laps 14 and 15 show

The telemetry comparison clearly identifies the two laps:

– Hamilton lap 14: 1:43.085, red — an out-lap affected by the pit exit and traffic;
– Hamilton lap 15: 1:24.937, white — a representative racing lap.

Lap 14 cannot be compared point by point with lap 15 because it is an out-lap and the public telemetry alignment is imperfect. Nevertheless, the throttle trace in the final part of lap 14 shows significant variation, a longer period off throttle and a progressive return to power. This is consistent with Davidson’s description of an unusual line, turbo de-spooling and additional battery demand when Hamilton accelerated again.


However, the public data does not include battery state of charge, MGU-K deployment or harvesting power, or the selected ERS map. It supports Davidson’s description of Hamilton’s driving profile but cannot directly display the corresponding energy flow.

4. Verstappen’s advantage on the overtaking lap

The direct comparison on lap 16 provides the most important evidence:

– Hamilton: 1:26.092, red;
– Verstappen: 1:24.985, blue.

On the approach to Turn 1, Verstappen has an advantage of approximately 9–11 kph. He also remains at full throttle for significantly longer, whereas Hamilton lifts earlier. Max therefore possessed a meaningful longitudinal advantage before the final braking phase began.

The pass was not produced solely by Verstappen’s bravery under braking. He arrived at the braking zone with an advantage already established on the straight, while Hamilton had less electrical power available and had therefore become vulnerable.

5. Did Verstappen use super-clipping?

To investigate whether Max employed a different energy strategy, his laps 13 and 16 can be compared:

– lap 13: 1:25.957, blue;
– lap 16: 1:24.985, orange.

Super-clipping occurs when the MGU-K harvests energy while the driver remains at full throttle. Part of the power that would otherwise reach the rear wheels is converted into electrical energy. Consequently, the car’s speed may plateau or even fall despite a 100% throttle trace.

On lap 16, Verstappen reaches a lower speed on the straight than on lap 13 despite remaining at full throttle. This profile is consistent either with stronger super-clipping or with reduced electrical deployment. Public telemetry cannot reliably distinguish between those two possibilities.

Crucially, any super-clipping would not itself have created Max’s speed advantage over Hamilton. By definition, super-clipping sacrifices power at the wheels in order to harvest energy. The comparison instead suggests that Verstappen was running a different energy-management strategy and that, despite being slower than on his own lap 13, he still retained an advantage of approximately 9–11 kph over Lewis.

It is plausible that Verstappen’s available energy and deployment strategy were prepared during his lap-15 out-lap, but the public telemetry cannot demonstrate this directly.

6. Conclusion

The strongest reconstruction is therefore as follows:

– Hamilton’s supposed boost activation was, according to Davidson, an initial misidentification of the Straight Mode control;
– Lewis’s energy deficit developed later, following an unexpected pass, a different line through Turn 14 and a longer period off throttle;
– returning to power after the turbo had de-spooled placed an additional demand on the battery;
– at the beginning of lap 16, Hamilton did not have his usual electrical power available;
– Verstappen approached Turn 1 approximately 9–11km/h faster and remained at full throttle for longer;
– Max’s braking and execution completed a pass whose advantage had already been established on the straight.

The explanation is therefore more nuanced than either “Max simply braked later” or “Lewis consumed his boost while overtaking a backmarker”. The evidence points towards a combination of Hamilton’s temporary energy deficit, Verstappen’s different deployment/harvesting strategy and Max’s decisive execution in the braking zone.

One limitation must remain explicit: publicly available telemetry does not include battery state of charge or detailed ERS energy flows. It can reveal the consequences and establish whether expert explanations are consistent with the speed, throttle and RPM traces, but it cannot directly prove how much electrical energy was harvested or deployed.
A 9-11 kph speed delta on the main straight is not indicative of a deployment problem, it's indicative of Verstappen being in the slipstream and using boost, neither of which Hamilton had/used. This was Hamilton being caught off-guard and neglecting to defend.

This closing speed is nothing special when we account for those factors. The move is made in the braking zone.

User avatar
venkyhere
45
Joined: 10 Feb 2024, 06:17

Re: 2026 Scuderia Ferrari HP F1 Team

Post

There are two extreme opposite camps on this overtake
- overtake of the season
- just lucky because Hamilton didn't have battery for straight that allowed the gap to reduce

My interpretation of @atanatizante 's posts is - there is too much subtlety and nuance to what happened here, and the truth falls somewhere in between both camps. My personal opinion is very similar (even without the telemetry analysis, just from onboards) - Verstappen just went instinctive and trusted his braking WHILST Hamilton being inattentive and not even expecting 'the guy behind the guy behind my car' to make a divebomb (by the time he realized and moved to shut the door, it was too late). This move reminded me so much of the moves Verstappen made into T1 in Brazil 2024 - caught atleast 3-4 people by surprise like this. Yes it's a superb move, but I wouldn't term it 'overtake of the season' - it was helped by the fact that there was another car in between (Lawson) that, in a way distracted/hid the move from being spotted early enough by the guy being overtaken. It's a testament to how 'efficient' Verstappen is with his attacking moves - he got one chance, and used it. Hamilton had so many, with a tyre compound advantage, in the first stint, but used none.

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
558
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 03:45

Re: 2026 Scuderia Ferrari HP F1 Team

Post

I think Lewis was also very kind in avoiding a collision when he saw the Max divebomb.
🖐️✌️☝️👀👌✍️🐎🏆🙏

Racing Green in 2028