Charles Leclerc has revealed that the unpredictable behaviour of Ferrari’s SF-26 prevented him from exploiting one of his greatest strengths around Baku: placing the car extremely close to the walls with precision and confidence. The Monegasque still qualified second for the Azerbaijan Grand Prix, but the result came with an eight-tenth deficit to George Russell despite the benefit of a slipstream.
Considering the sensations behind the wheel and the weaknesses Ferrari has encountered with the SF-26, second place arguably exceeded even the most optimistic expectations. The car had already shown a clear degree of unpredictability on Friday, effectively translating into instability under both traction and corner entry, where several lock-ups had also appeared. Those problems help explain why Charles Leclerc’s Baku front-row result was stronger than the underlying performance picture suggested.
Charles Leclerc says Ferrari remained unpredictable despite Baku progress
The same difficulties in extracting everything from the car continued into qualifying. As the track evolved from an exceptionally dirty first day of practice, when grip levels were among the lowest seen all season, Ferrari improved and found more adhesion. It was progress, but not enough to eliminate the SF-26’s fundamental limitations.
The end result was still a front-row start, helped by an excellent tow arranged with Lewis Hamilton. That assistance gave Charles Leclerc something extra down Baku’s enormous straight, but a deeper analysis of the gap shows that Ferrari failed to make the difference even in areas where the car should theoretically have been stronger, particularly around the Castle section.
Those weaknesses had already emerged in the SF-26 telemetry analysis from Baku, which highlighted how Ferrari’s previous cornering advantage had been eroded relative to its rivals.
After qualifying, Charles Leclerc explained that the eight-tenth deficit to George Russell was significant even though the Ferrari had felt better than at any other point during the weekend.
“When I see the gap to George, it’s a pretty significant gap. So yes, the car felt better today compared to the rest of the weekend,” Charles Leclerc explained after Q3.
“We’ve had our difficulties and we weren’t as competitive as we wanted to be. But as George said, it’s very difficult to get these tyres into the right window. And particularly this weekend, I think both ourselves and McLaren were in the same boat, struggling a lot during practice.”
Ferrari tyre difficulties remained inconsistent throughout the weekend
The problem was not that the SF-26 never produced a competitive lap. Instead, Ferrari struggled to reproduce the correct balance consistently, something closely linked to bringing the tyres into their ideal operating window.
“Some laps were good, but never really consistently,” Charles Leclerc continued. “In qualifying, however, I felt that we did a better job. But everything is relative, and eight and a half tenths is a lot. There are many things we need to work on and try to improve, especially because our weakness is usually straight-line speed. But today, even in sector two, that’s where George made the difference.”
That observation is supported by the final-run comparison. Charles Leclerc still lost around two tenths to George Russell in sector two, an area containing numerous slow corners where Ferrari might have expected to recover some of the time sacrificed elsewhere.
Part of the deficit came from the difference in acceleration and battery management. Mercedes possesses greater flexibility in the way it deploys electrical energy, while the W17 has also been competitive under traction since the beginning of the championship. However, that explains only part of the picture.
Ferrari struggles through Baku’s slow corners as setup compromises bite
Through Baku’s slower corners, the Ferrari continued to struggle both on entry and, above all, when putting the power down. The behaviour suggested a car that needed to remain relatively stiff so it could stay close to the ground along the straights and reduce aerodynamic drag.
That compromise added another complication to Ferrari’s persistent difficulty in activating its tyres, something that remained evident during qualifying. During practice, both drivers had experienced numerous lock-ups as they struggled to achieve consistent stability under braking and corner entry.
Balancing the front and rear axles during the preparation lap is particularly difficult in Baku, and every team encountered some degree of difficulty. For a car as sensitive to tyre conditions as the SF-26, however, those challenges generated further problems and magnified the time already being lost on the straights. Ferrari’s wider setup dilemma had also raised questions over whether the team had taken the wrong technical direction in Baku.
Mercedes enjoyed far more flexibility, whereas Ferrari had to accept compromises. When the SF-26 no longer had sufficient electrical energy to continue pushing, it was forced to cut deployment. That contributed to approximately two tenths being lost before Turn 15 and another two tenths on the long straight towards the finish line, in addition to the deficit through Turn 15 itself, where George Russell set the benchmark.
The straight-line differences and deployment effects can also be explored through the F1 Top Speed Comparison, where outright speed figures provide additional context for Ferrari’s Baku compromises.
Unpredictable SF-26 prevents Leclerc from attacking Baku’s walls
For Charles Leclerc, however, the most important concern went beyond the raw eight-tenth deficit. The unpredictability of the car made it difficult to use one of the qualities that has traditionally made him particularly effective around the Baku City Circuit: his ability to run extremely close to the walls while maintaining precision.
“The predictability of the car, throughout the weekend, has been really complicated,” Charles Leclerc explained. “Usually one of my strengths here is precision: I’m able to get very close to the walls and take a lot of risks.”
“But this weekend I couldn’t do that because the car wasn’t reacting exactly the way I wanted. It was quite unpredictable. It was better than in practice, but I couldn’t push the way I normally do: I had to leave a little more margin than I normally manage to on this track.”
Those comments, together with the sector-two deficit, arguably reveal more about Ferrari’s situation than the final eight-tenth gap alone. Charles Leclerc still managed to secure second place, but he did so while unable to use one of the driving qualities that has so often made him exceptionally fast in Azerbaijan. More coverage of his season and performances is available in the Charles Leclerc section.
Ferrari hopes its race pace can change the Baku picture
The front row nevertheless provides Ferrari with a strong platform from which to build a solid Azerbaijan Grand Prix. The SF-26 has often proved more consistent in race conditions than over a single qualifying lap, offering some reason for encouragement despite the limitations exposed on Friday.
The shortage of electrical energy on the straights will inevitably remain a factor, but Ferrari hopes that running consistently over longer sequences of laps could improve the tyre situation. Several drivers already chose to complete multiple laps on the same set in qualifying in an effort to bring the tyres fully into their operating window.
“We will try and do our best; whether it will be enough, only time will tell,” Charles Leclerc added. “We know we have a good car in race trim, often better on Sunday than in qualifying. And I hope that will be the case again this weekend.”
Ferrari therefore enters the Azerbaijan Grand Prix with a valuable front-row position but with substantial technical questions still unresolved. Charles Leclerc’s P2 demonstrates what can be extracted from the SF-26 when the lap comes together, yet the lack of predictability, tyre difficulties, deployment compromises and unexpected sector-two deficit show why challenging Mercedes over the race distance remains a demanding task.
Leave a Reply