Robert Kubica put Ferrari on top of the timesheets in the second free practice session for the 2026 6 Hours of Monza, but Friday’s rain-affected running left more questions than answers about the true competitive order. The #83 Ferrari 499P, operated by AF Corse, finished the afternoon session fastest as changing track conditions made it particularly difficult for drivers and engineers to draw reliable conclusions.
The opening day at the Italian circuit unfolded in challenging conditions, with heavy rain during the morning and a gradually drying track in the afternoon. Several competitors ended FP2 on slick tyres, completing laps that offered limited value for direct performance comparisons but provided useful information about the crossover point between wet-weather and dry-weather compounds, particularly if similar conditions develop during Sunday’s race.
Ferrari’s fastest time was an encouraging result at its home circuit, building on the opening-day practice results at Monza. However, the variation in track conditions, tyre choices and running programmes means the team’s apparent advantage should be treated cautiously.
Monza 6 Hours practice analysis: Toyota impresses with drivability
Looking beyond the lap times, Toyota appeared to be among the manufacturers offering its drivers the greatest confidence in the difficult conditions. Its cars seemed particularly manageable when returning to the throttle, allowing the drivers to accelerate more aggressively without losing control.
Ferrari also produced encouraging signs, especially during the first practice session, when its lap times suggested a reasonably competitive package despite the wet conditions.
Cadillac and BMW, on the other hand, appeared considerably more difficult to drive at the limit. The two Jota-run Cadillac entries repeatedly ran deep under braking for the first chicane, highlighting their difficulties in slowing the cars consistently.
Problems were also evident at Ascari, where the #20 BMW went off during the second phase of the corner towards the end of FP1.
The struggles of the Cadillac V-Series.R cars were particularly noticeable, with their drivers repeatedly unable to complete the braking phase for the first chicane cleanly.
It would, however, be too simplistic to attribute those difficulties entirely to the concerns previously raised by the drivers about the large-displacement engine. Its characteristics can make engine braking difficult to manage, particularly at the rear axle, where regenerative braking also operates.
Although this may contribute to the behaviour observed on track, the challenges appeared too complex to be explained by that factor alone.
Ferrari #83 shows strong pace as Alpine leads the long-run comparisons
Alpine performed well over a single lap, proving competitive in the wet alongside Aston Martin. The second practice session also began with a very wet track, before conditions gradually improved.
Looking at average lap times rather than outright fastest laps, the #36 Alpine emerged as particularly competitive. The #83 Ferrari followed closely, with the #17 Genesis also displaying promising pace.
The privately operated AF Corse Ferrari delivered excellent lap-time references, especially during the period when several competitors switched from wet-weather tyres to slicks.
Robert Kubica ultimately recorded the fastest time of the day in the #83 Ferrari, although the asphalt remained considerably damp when the Polish driver completed his lap.
BMW, which continued using wet-weather tyres, finished with an average pace approximately half a second slower than the leading Alpine A424.
The #009 Aston Martin was a similar distance behind, followed by the #94 Peugeot. Cadillac’s performance reinforced the impressions gathered from watching the cars trackside, with an average lap time roughly eight-tenths slower than the benchmark.
Toyota ended up further down the order but remained within approximately one second of the leading average pace.
These comparisons must nevertheless be considered in the context of the Balance of Performance, or BoP, which remains a significant unknown throughout the current season.
Given the performance of the Toyota TR010 Hybrid at Barcelona, it cannot be ruled out that the manufacturer has received a sufficiently substantial performance adjustment to make fighting for victory extremely difficult.
Ryo Hirakawa, who recently made his Formula 1 debut, explained that the Japanese car performs particularly well when drivers need to attack kerbs aggressively and maintain stability over bumps. Those characteristics are considerably less relevant at Monza, where the circuit places different demands on the machinery.
Ferrari’s biggest Monza concern: Getting Michelin tyres into the operating window
Weather conditions are expected to improve considerably on Saturday and Sunday, introducing further uncertainty about how representative Friday’s competitive order will prove to be.
Alessandro Pier Guidi reflected on the situation at the end of the day, noting that some drivers could arrive at Sunday’s race without completing a single lap on a dry track, particularly if the third free practice session is also affected by rain.
That possibility makes preparation especially complicated, with teams potentially having to make important set-up and strategic decisions without reliable dry-running references.
One challenge is already clear: keeping the tyres within their optimal operating temperature range.
At a circuit such as Monza, quickly generating sufficient tyre temperature will be crucial. According to Michelin’s projections, the compounds should be capable of completing as many as three consecutive stints, potentially without tyre warmers.
The soft compound is expected to be the preferred option, although the medium could become useful on Sunday if temperatures rise slightly or if particular strategic requirements make it a more attractive choice.
This challenge is especially relevant to Ferrari. The 499P has previously experienced difficulties bringing its tyres up to temperature, particularly following race neutralisations.
That weakness could become an important factor during the six-hour race, especially if a Safety Car or another interruption forces drivers to rebuild tyre temperature after a period of reduced speed.
The issue was also highlighted in Ferrari’s preparations for the Monza WEC finale, where low temperatures and tyre management emerged as important technical considerations.
Why changing weather could make Monza qualifying less decisive
With the race expected to finish in almost complete darkness, tyre-temperature management could become even more significant in the closing stages.
Cooler conditions may make it harder to keep the tyres in their operating window, while the possibility of running extended stints adds another strategic variable.
Friday’s wet conditions have also prevented teams from gathering all the information they would normally want before qualifying. If Saturday remains unsettled and Sunday is considerably drier, the technical picture established during the opening sessions may change dramatically.
Ferrari can take encouragement from the pace demonstrated by Robert Kubica and the #83 car, but Toyota’s apparent drivability, Alpine’s consistent average pace and the different tyre choices used by competitors make it difficult to establish a reliable hierarchy.
For the Italian manufacturer, the balance between outright speed and tyre warm-up will be particularly important when trying to convert Friday’s promising performance into a strong race result.
The complete 2026 Monza 6 Hours schedule details the remaining practice session, qualifying and Sunday’s race, while further insight into the challenges facing Ferrari can be found in Antonello Coletta’s assessment of Ferrari’s WEC programme.
For now, the opening day has produced more uncertainty than clear answers. With weather conditions expected to change and tyre management potentially playing a decisive role over six hours, Saturday could prove one of the least decisive qualifying days of the season when it comes to predicting Sunday’s result.
Leave a Reply