Explained: Ferrari’s Power Unit management issue in Canada and why reset procedure in pits was necessary to fix it. In Canada, Charles Leclerc's race was affected by a Power Unit management problem.

The double zero points finish at the 4.361-kilometre Circuit Gilles-Villeneuve in Montreal weighs heavily for Ferrari, more on morale than on the standings, with the team from Maranello having to quickly put the Canadian weekend behind them to focus on one of the most challenging races of the year, the Spanish Grand Prix.

Charles Leclerc also wants to quickly forget the Montreal event, as the Monegasque was the protagonist of a weekend where nothing went as hoped. After a generally encouraging Friday, so much so that the Monegasque highlighted how the Ferrari was competitive in every condition, Saturday and Sunday were full of problems, both in terms of pace and reliability.

On Saturday, Charles Leclerc was annoyed by a problem with the sensor that records brake temperature, which reported higher than normal values on the right rear unit, sending a false alarm signal on the steering wheel about possible overheating. The problem occurred both in Free Practice 3 and in qualifying, so much so that the mechanics then intervened under parc fermé conditions to replace the sensor.

However, the problems recorded on Sunday were much more serious and impactful on the Ferrari driver’s race. In the first part of the Canadian Grand Prix, the engineers recorded an issue related to the power unit, with an increasingly significant performance impact as the laps went by. According to data recorded by the Maranello team, initially, the problem caused a loss of about half a second on the straights, but as the track dried and the race progressed, that value grew to about a second. Clearly, however, aside from the engine issue, the Ferrari lacked performance on both days.

“It was a very tough weekend for all of us. With Charles, we had an engine problem that cost us about 80 horsepower for about fifteen laps: we were hoping for a red flag to perform a reset and restart but it didn’t happen, so we had to stop during the race,” said the Ferrari Team Principal, who then added that the issue did not seem to be related to the engine itself but rather to the management part of the Power Unit linked to the control unit.” – the Frenchman explained.

“We do not yet have precise information on what happened, but it was not an engine problem per se, it was something related to engine control, so we had to stop the engine. We did a reset, but it lasted 30 or 40 seconds. It was not the best pitstop of the season.”

Ferrari’s hope was that a red flag would allow them to fix the problem in the pits without losing positions. Initially, the engineers tried to resolve the situation with recovery procedures, internally called “driver default,” which allow the team to act on the sensors and other elements of the Power Unit. However, this was not enough, and, taking advantage of the Safety Car, Ferrari decided to stop the car to perform a “power cycle,” which is the procedure in which the car is completely shut down, like a sort of reset. Clearly, however, this procedure takes time to complete because the car must go through the three phases P0, P1, and P2, which indicate the activation of the various systems, from the electrical part to the thermal engine.

It was questioned why Ferrari did not perform this procedure when it came in for the first pit stop to switch to another set of intermediate tires, when rain was expected in a few minutes. The reason is purely practical: at that time, Charles Leclerc’s teammate, Carlos Sainz, was behind him, so performing the reset of the car at that moment would have meant also wasting time for the Spaniard. Sainz would not only have lost positions, but he would also have had to remain stationary with the hot car in the pit lane, which cars do not handle well.

During the Safety Car period, however, the team and driver began to consider their options. Since the risk of rain had significantly decreased, especially in terms of intensity, Charles Leclerc and the team started to consider switching to slicks, in what was a sort of all-or-nothing move. Considering that he would still drop to the back of the group and that the safety car would allow the gaps to close up at least partially, Ferrari took the opportunity to stop and perform the reset.

The choice to switch to slicks, as well as to hard tires to go to the end of the race, was shared between the Maranello team and the driver, but the return of the rain right after the pit stop clearly did not reward the “bravery” of the decision, pushing Charles Leclerc to return to the pits a few laps later to mount intermediates again. While the tire gamble did not yield the desired results, the reset procedure worked as hypothesized, demonstrating that it was more likely an issue with the Power Unit management part rather than the engine itself.

Although it is difficult to compare data in different situations, it is noted that before and after the reset, there is a noticeable speed difference on all straights, averaging between 10 and 15 kilometers per hour on the long straight before the last chicane.

Charles Leclerc’s fastest lap time with the problem was set on lap 23, a 1.26.623, when he reached 306 kilometers per hour with drag reduction system, while his fastest time after solving it was on lap 39, a 1.26.012, when he reached 308 kilometers per hour without DRS. It was like running with negative DRS, plus a loss of acceleration.

“In the first part of the race it was very frustrating because on the straight I was overtaken by everyone, but I think we did a good job of managing. When we were still in wet conditions, we could recover in the corners, and I was still convinced we could finish in the points. But then, as soon as it dried up, on the straights I found myself a target for the others,” explained Leclerc.

“I knew it would be difficult to get points, so we had to try something with the slicks. I was more frustrated with the whole situation and the engine performance on the straights than with the actual choice because if it had worked, maybe it was our only chance to finish ninth or tenth, and if it didn’t work or if we stayed in the position we were in before.”