Compare Ferrari’s new SF16-H with their 2015 car

2016 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

The first pictures of Ferrari’s SF16-H have been revealed by the team.

See what changes the team has made for its 2016 design with these interactive images.

Go ad-free for just £1 per month

>> Find out more and sign up

2016 Ferrari SF16-H and 2015 Ferrari SF-15: Top view

2016 Ferrari SF16-H and 2015 Ferrari SF-15: Side view

2016 Ferrari SF16-H and 2015 Ferrari SF-15: Front view

2016 F1 season

Browse all 2016 F1 season articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

75 comments on “Compare Ferrari’s new SF16-H with their 2015 car”

  1. Well, the Marlboro symbol on the engine cover is certainly more pronounce on this year’s car!

    1. Shhh, it’s a secret!

    2. yes. with the red stripe down the back the side view shows a veruy obvious marlboro logo. not sure how they’ll get away with that

      1. @guitargraham I hope they don’t so that we can be rid of this awful livery!

      2. I agree. It is clear that the whole point of the white cockpit and engine cover and otherwise pointless red stripe, is to create that Marlboro chevron effect. To me this is a stealth Marlboro livery rather than a red ferrari livery.

        1. According to Bloomberg, Phillip Morris are sponsoring Ferrari until the end of 2018 (at least) and renewed their sponsorship last year.

          It makes you think what they (Phillip Morris) get out of it to be honest? They have what looks like half a Marlboro packet as Ferrari’s logo and the Marlboro colours. But IMO if someone who knew nothing about the sponsorship saw the car, they would not associate it with Marlboro.

        2. Just realised that the chevron effect doesn’t happen on the right side of the car. Expect all publicity photos from Ferrari to be of the left hand side.

      3. Straight away I thought of the Marlboro McLaren. Now I see it is actually sponsored by m. coincidence?

        A Ferrari should be red.

    3. +1 !!!
      The EU hammer coming down in 3,2,1…

  2. they’ve had the same livery since 2009, so it’s good to change!

    1. unfortunately, all the white reminds me of the 1993 livery :( was never a fan of so much white on the Ferrari.

  3. Well it looks a lot slimmer. Definitely will be much better in the aero department. I hope they did not compromised the cooling to much.

  4. These interactive slider things are way too cool.

    1. @craig-o Thank you :-)

      1. It is amazing. This is already my favourite website and now it’s just a new level. Legend!

      2. Yes, incredible!

      3. Yes, VERY well done! My favorite F1 website as well!

      4. Thanks Keith, really nice work, intuitive and clean.
        Well done !
        Cheers !

    2. Agreed. It’s awesome.

    3. Fudge Ahmed (@)
      19th February 2016, 14:26

      +1 thank you Keith

    4. Really cool, well done.

    5. Agreed, quality addition!

    6. Bjornar Simonsen
      19th February 2016, 15:41

      Yes! I love it! Very well indeed :) Finally able to make good comparisons.

    7. FlyingLobster27
      19th February 2016, 15:51

      Yeah, it works brilliantly for Ferrari because they shoot from the same angles from one year to the next. The Williams one is dodgier, but you can only use the pics that the teams publish…

    8. yea totally awesome!

    9. Agree 100% – extremely useful and well-executed. Thanks, Keith!

    10. Works a treat – you can even make the new colour scheme disappear.

    11. Great to notice the difference in length of the nose – from beyond the wing to before! Must say the short noses – which also imply the “protuberance” – look much worse.

    12. Agreed – best way to see the differences between the cars. Thanks!

    13. OK…that swipe pic is bad ass! Thanks Keith!

  5. They’ve switched to a stub (or tab) nose.

  6. I just cannot accept the stupid nose protuberances on these cars. They look ridiculous. I don’t need the cars to look like they did in 1984 or 1995 or 2004, but come on. It’s been too many years of unsightly nonsense.

    The paint job looks nice, save for the cynical Marlboro shenanigans.

    1. A paint job that “looks nice” doesn’t make the car go faster, and therefore is potentially useless for motorcar racing, except for bringing in commercial money and thus allowing for the paychecks of designers, drivers, etc. But perhaps you go too far with “cynical Marlboro shenanigans”? Please remember that some of the greatest names and advances in F1 (and other motor sports) were made possible only because of tobacco advertizing. Tongue in cheek, I might even suggest that Lotus failed after John Player was banned; Gitane and Gauloise are gone, and we no longer have a French GP; the list goes on.
      In particular, all of this “political correctness” (some will call it health care advocacy) is hampering the smaller teams (and Bernie’s billions.) Disclaimer: I’ve smoked all my life, natural tobacco, no chemicals, hand rolled in rice paper, no chemicals, and as a near-octogenarian scuba diver regularly make a tank of air last twice as long as non-smokers in their twenties.
      Tobacco, alcohol, etc are personal choices for the drivers, teams and spectators/fans. Most people can block out advertizing if it doesn’t suit their lifestyle. Why deny money to F1 teams who are struggling in one of the most expensive sports in the world? We. the fans, are the ones who suffer…

      1. @paul-a, the decline of the original Lotus team was more strongly linked to the loss of its best staff, such as Ducarouge, and the loss of manufacturer support after Honda went to McLaren, rather than tobacco sponsorship.

        Also, is it actually costing the teams money? When Williams dropped their associations with tobacco sponsors, their sponsorship income actually increased in the longer term – with the increasingly negative social stigma around tobacco, being prominently associated with tobacco companies was starting to cost them sponsorship from companies that did not want to be associated with them.

      2. And maybe tomorrow @paul-a you find you have cancer. A product that is proven to cause death has absolutely no place being advertised in today’s health conscious times, especially not in a sport. That is why it is against the law in most countries.

        I think this livery could be problematic for Ferrari as the Marlboro chevron is far more obvious now. Maybe Australia will force Ferrari to run in plain packaging drab brown lol.

        1. @the-last-pope

          A product that is proven to cause death has absolutely no place being advertised in today’s health conscious times,

          What about the exhaust gases from engines? Are those proven to be healthy and safe?

          1. Exhaust gasses aren’t meant for human consumption. Cigarettes are. It doesn’t matter how health-conscious people are, cigarettes are a product of companies whom should be charged with 1st degree murder (meets all California criteria for 1st degree murder– premeditation, reckless disregard for human life, caused the unlawful death of another) that give people cancer, and disproportionally affect poor people.

          2. Of course not. The difference is the the purpose of vehicles is not to pollute the air we breathe and the car companies are working hard to comply with ever stricter laws on emissions.

          3. Gee people, you really make me laugh with your excuses. Engines are not meant for human consumption so it is fine pouring tons of gases into the atmosphere. Get real. And no matter what the cars company do, exhaust gases are and will always be poisonous to humans and every leaving being.

          4. Caci99 You are the one trying to make an excuse for allowing outlawed advertising. It is not fine for engines to pour tons of pollutants into the air, that is why there are such strict emissions laws.Why do you think VW got in such big trouble for cheating the emissions tests? Why do you think car companies spend millions on developing cars that run on alternate clean fuels? The fact is we need vehicles to travel to places we need to be. We don’t need cigarettes for anything, we are in fact much better off without them. These are facts not excuses.

        2. I’m going to die of something — lung cancer, lightning, being hit by a school bus, whatever — but at least I’ve enjoyed the last seventy six years, and would rather die sooner enjoying myself than later and miserable. My body, my life, my choice – not your’s, not the government’s. Others can suggest, advise, warn, but tobacco is legal worldwide (and has never been proven to cause my death) only advertizing is regulated; but do you really believe that teenagers have never heard of smoking? (Probably quite the contrary; tell your average kid not to do something, then bet he’ll try it when you’re not watching.)

          Motor racing is itself dangerous (been there, hurt myself) but that’s part of the challenge that we all face one way or another. I still prefer a street circuit like Monaco to wide open run-off areas, because a single mistake sorts out the men from the boys.

          To avoid it, should F1 be transformed into a computer competition? The WDC be judged on which driver makes the least mistakes in a simulator? Then we can stop emitting CO and NOx (not just the race cars, but the whole Boeing circus flying F1 worldwide) and “save” more people from having fun during their lifetime.

          1. Tobacco companies disproportionally prey on poor, uneducated, often illiterate people. These aren’t F1’s regulations, but rather those of the EU. These are companies that take small, underdeveloped countries to court for trying to pass plain packaging laws. They aren’t allowed to advertise in F1, and they shouldn’t be.

          2. I don’t want my younger members of the family getting the idea that tags are ‘cool’.

            We are brainwashed with ads all time until we believe them like north Korea think Kim is God. It doesn’t make it right.

        3. Alcohol is OK though. At least that never killed anyone or took advantage of the under privileged.

          1. The difference there is responsibility. Drinking responsibly is considered safe. You can’t smoke safely, the damage builds up.

      3. Most people can block out advertizing if it doesn’t suit their lifestyle. Why deny money to F1 teams

        Research has proven @paul-a that where sports sponsorship by tobacco companies is banned fewer young people take up smoking. For example:

        The evidence satisfies the Hill criteria, indicating that exposure to tobacco promotion causes children to initiate tobacco use.

        It’s great that you can smoke and scuba dive, but you’re a sample of one :)

        So there are two problems with Ferrari’s Marlboro branding: it temps their young fans to smoke, and it’s a major source of money that’s denied to other teams whose governments enforce the EU directive.

  7. Not only can we see just how much tighter the rear end but it gives us a cool view on just how much the actual front wing has developed from this time last year and obviously how different the nose is

  8. I’ve got to say @keithcollantine, you’re awesome! Seriously, the quality and amount of information you post on this website (or should I say “Blog”) is absolutly amazing! Hence my reluctance in making comments to the stuff you do because I don’t want to sound like one of those guys that only know how to criticize (and not in a constructive way)… But if you would allow me to make a sugestion, if possible I would rotate the slider 90º in the top view so we’re able to compare both cars’ sides… But other than that, truly amazing! Keep up the good work! :)

    1. Word.
      Rotating the slider would greatly benefit the scope of that comparison.
      And great site. Congrats

  9. As long as Vettel is comfortable driving it, I’m okay with it!

  10. very beautiful, congratulations to Ferrari.

    Until now, Im satisfied:
    -Ferrari = better than 2015
    -Williams = the same, but it was already good
    -RBR = much better than 2015

    Lets wait to check on McLarens

  11. Andres Satizabal
    19th February 2016, 15:47

    Keith, this is great stuff. Thank you for this level of detail.

    The design is quite different. It will take them a while to figure the car out and reach its potential, but it gives them the chance to beat the Mercs over a season. When you are behind you have to take risks, and I’m glad that’s what Ferrari is doing.

  12. Looks like they made progress on the cooling department. Much slimmer.

  13. I think they shortened the nose so Kimi wont hit the car in front by millimeters.

    1. whooaat!!

  14. wow this sliding new feature is very nice! good one!

  15. The new Ferrari looks a lot like the 2015 Mercedes in red.

  16. I love the new tone of the red in the SF17-H!

    1. Sf16-h actually

  17. thanks Keith slider is awesome

  18. So far, including the first glance at the Mercedes, the aesthetical differences seem minimal: sidepods for both Ferrari and Williams, and the nose for the former. This is a good synonym of rule stability, as we had pre-2009, but I’m not as happy not to be surprised as the current looks (especially the noses) are not exactly pretty.

  19. Maybe it’s just me, but we need to do a comparison between the Williams and Ferrari of 2016. Both have the same nose, sidepod height and design etc. I thought it was quite a similar philosophy behind those 2 cars.

    The SF16 seems to have a slimmer rear end and a shorter (Williams’s style) nose as compared to last year’s car. The livery is ugly. I thought Italians were known for their aesthetics.

    @keithcollantine . The sliders are absolutely awesome. I spent half an hour playing around with them. Fanatastic addition for f1fanatics!

    1. I agree – I love being able to compare the cars like this.

  20. seems like a significantly tighter car overall, especially the front and the sidepods.

  21. well the new nose sucks!!!its the same nose from williams, last year car looked a lot better. i hope in 2017 they cut the crap with this awful designs

  22. Wow, thank you Keith – it’s been a few years since you did the side by side comparison….but this is even better!

  23. The boffins over at F1Technical are all freaking out about this car… It seems like, from the pictures at least, they’ve done an awful lot of development.

  24. Lol, looks exactly like Williams nose.

    Meh, color scheme is nice, sidepods are noticably smaller.. Front wing looks faster… All good. But overall nothing spectacullary prettier. Infact only sidepods seem preetier than lastyear.

    Saddly regulations are such, that all cars look the same. And that is the real shame.

  25. front wing will never race one race in 2016 since its an old 2015 wing thats just on the car for the launch.
    Pretty has never won a Formula 1 race last time i checked.
    higher nose tip height and “finger” = more air to channel to the rear of the car… slimmer sidepods with a well defined undercut before the rear suspension and much more defined coke bottle shape allows more air to flow over the diffuser which brings more downforce without the drag penalty wings bring with them. all upgrades from the bulky SF15-T. where do you think Mercedes got all their downforce from? magic?

  26. Wow Keith, great graphics! With the slider, from the top and side views, the monocoque looks the same, with obvious slimming of the bodywork around the gearbox. Are they using the same chassis as last year (with modifications for front suspension pick-up points)?

  27. It looked a bit like an RB9 to me.

    1. Whoops. It’s the RB10 that I am referring to.

  28. I was recommended this website for f1 coverage after seeing the terrible f1 coverage provided by bbc sport and had enough. The bbc sport ‘technical analysis’ by andrew benson consisted of large pictures, his own opinion of the livery (and bias of McLaren and Alonso) a paragraph of comments from the drivers and team bosses unrelated to the technical improvements (mostly ‘we have made improvements and have a better car’ and ‘the car looks nice wow cool etc’), absolutely poor like it was written by a 10 year old. Being on here for the first time today for 30 minutes I have to say this is awesome and the type of analysis and f1 news coverage I need, along with comment sections on every article.

Comments are closed.