Mercedes holds the advantage while Ferrari may need a complete setup rethink
The second free practice session for the 2026 Austrian Grand Prix provided several valuable technical insights, although the competitive picture is still far from settled. Teams worked at the Red Bull Ring in extremely demanding conditions, with track temperatures reaching 50°C early in the session before stabilising around 48°C, while ambient temperatures remained between 31°C and 32°C. As expected, Pirelli’s softest compounds—the C3, C4 and C5 tyres—were the focus throughout the afternoon.
Based on Friday’s data, Mercedes emerged as the most complete package. Andrea Kimi Antonelli topped the qualifying simulations with a 1:07.014, while his theoretical ideal lap was almost identical at 1:06.975. His sector times—16.627 in Sector 1, 30.041 in Sector 2 and 20.307 in Sector 3—gave him the fastest first and third sectors of the session. The W17 combined impressive acceleration, strong mid-corner speed and excellent stability during the final part of the lap, particularly when tyre temperatures were already well established.
Mercedes impresses, but the picture is more nuanced
There is, however, an important detail that should not be overlooked. The telemetry suggests Mercedes may have pushed harder than several of its rivals in multiple areas, including the use of its latest power unit specification, despite it not featuring a significant upgrade. This certainly does not diminish the team’s performance, but it helps put the advantage into context. The W17 appeared to be operating comfortably within its optimal window while also using more aggressive settings than some of its competitors.
Looking at the best sector times also reduces Mercedes’ apparent margin over McLaren. Oscar Piastri recorded a 1:07.251, while Lando Norris stopped the clock at 1:07.339. Combining each driver’s strongest sectors produces a theoretical lap of 1:07.100—only 0.125 seconds slower than Mercedes’ ideal lap. Lando Norris set the fastest Sector 2 of the day with a 29.995, while Oscar Piastri came closest to Andrea Kimi Antonelli in Sector 3 with a 20.381.
McLaren therefore appears to have plenty of untapped potential. The MCL40 has not yet delivered a perfect lap, but its overall balance and consistency suggest it could challenge Mercedes once everything comes together.
Race pace: Mercedes remains the benchmark
The long-run simulations reinforced Mercedes’ advantage. George Russell produced the fastest average race pace on the Medium compound with a 1:11.220, narrowly ahead of Andrea Kimi Antonelli on 1:11.265. Lando Norris followed with a 1:11.466, showing excellent pace during the opening laps of his stint before losing some consistency towards the end.
It would be inaccurate to say McLaren suffered significantly higher tyre degradation than Mercedes, but a clear trend emerged. The MCL40 reached its operating window quickly and generated immediate pace, while the W17 proved more consistent over an entire stint.
Red Bull remains considerably harder to evaluate. Max Verstappen posted a 1:07.564, with his ideal lap matching his best actual time almost perfectly. However, the Austrian team’s extensive aerodynamic update package means Friday’s performance should be interpreted carefully.
The RB22 featured revised sidepod inlets, a heavily redesigned T-tray acting as a much larger flow conditioner, a more complex floor edge and new vortex generators ahead of the rear wheels. Collectively, these changes are intended to improve airflow management underneath the car, enhance diffuser performance, stabilise the sealing vortex and reduce the car’s sensitivity to pitch and yaw.
Even so, Red Bull’s race pace lacked consistency. Max Verstappen averaged a 1:11.704 but alternated competitive laps with others exceeding 1:12. The potential is clearly there, but the package still requires further optimisation.
Ferrari faces its most difficult Friday yet
Ferrari’s performance was by far the hardest to interpret. The SF-26 does not appear to suffer from a simple lack of aerodynamic downforce. In several corners—particularly with Lewis Hamilton behind the wheel—the car continued to show encouraging entry speed and respectable mid-corner grip.
However, those strengths failed to translate into competitive lap times. The Ferrari consistently slid more than its rivals, not dramatically enough to be obvious, but sufficiently to compromise corner exits, increase tyre temperatures and reduce acceleration onto the straights.
Lewis Hamilton finished with a best lap of 1:07.611, while Charles Leclerc recorded a 1:07.855. Ferrari’s theoretical best lap remained exactly Lewis Hamilton’s time, indicating that there was virtually no additional performance left unused across both cars.
The deficit was spread throughout the lap. Lewis Hamilton lost 0.137 seconds to Andrea Kimi Antonelli in Sector 1, another 0.265 seconds to McLaren’s benchmark in Sector 2 and 0.280 seconds to Mercedes in the final sector. This demonstrates that Ferrari’s problems extend well beyond straight-line speed. Stability under braking, corner entry, traction and tyre management through long corners all contributed to the gap.
The critical weakness lies at corner exit
The most significant limitation appears to occur during the transition from the middle of the corner to corner exit. The SF-26 still carries respectable minimum speed, but struggles to complete the corner efficiently enough to allow early throttle application.
At the Red Bull Ring, that weakness is particularly costly. Drivers must straighten the car as quickly as possible before applying full power. If the rear tyres begin to slide, temperatures rise rapidly and the driver is forced to manage wheelspin instead of accelerating cleanly.
Compared to Barcelona, Friday’s data is less reassuring. Two weeks ago Ferrari lacked outright qualifying pace but looked considerably stronger during race simulations. In Austria, that was no longer the case.
Lewis Hamilton averaged 1:11.773 during his long run, placing him in the same group as Oscar Piastri and Max Verstappen but still well behind the Mercedes pace. Charles Leclerc averaged 1:12.116, remaining outside the leading performance window altogether.
If Ferrari’s qualifying simulations were once again completed with approximately 15 kilograms of fuel—as was believed to be the case in Spain—then the performance deficit cannot simply be explained by differing fuel loads or alternative run plans.
ADUO upgrade remains difficult to evaluate
Ferrari’s first ADUO evolution, estimated to deliver between five and seven additional horsepower, was not clearly visible in Friday’s top-speed figures. Such a modest increase can easily be offset by higher aerodynamic drag, cooling requirements, conservative engine mapping or inefficient corner exits.
At lower speeds, raw engine output is only one part of the equation. The effectiveness with which torque is transferred to the asphalt often plays an even greater role in overall performance.
Externally, Ferrari also appeared to be using its Power Unit extremely conservatively. In some sections of the circuit, Lewis Hamilton recorded top speeds up to 14 km/h slower than Andrea Kimi Antonelli. A difference of that magnitude cannot be explained solely by aerodynamic drag or weaker traction. It may also reflect more cautious deployment strategies, engine mapping or thermal management, particularly in temperatures exceeding 31°C.
The Red Bull Ring’s altitude further complicates matters. Located around 700 metres above sea level, the circuit’s thinner air forces the turbocharger to work harder in order to maintain the same level of engine filling. If Ferrari’s compact turbocharger prioritises packaging and responsiveness, it may have less airflow capacity at higher engine speeds under these conditions.
That could partially explain why the benefits of the ADUO upgrade were difficult to detect. Ferrari may have needed to adjust boost pressure, intake temperatures, ignition timing, cooling and energy deployment to compensate. Unlike Barcelona, the SF-26 also ran with noticeably more open cooling louvres despite similar ambient temperatures, suggesting that thermal management was receiving particular attention.
Ultimately, Ferrari’s straight-line deficit cannot be attributed to a single weakness. Instead, it appears to be the result of several smaller factors combining into one significant performance loss.
Lower tyre pressures—if introduced by Pirelli—could help teams struggling to generate grip, including Ferrari, but they would certainly not solve every issue observed on Friday.
Despite the disappointing data, confidence remains within the Scuderia that meaningful improvements can still be found overnight. However, the current feeling is that Ferrari may need to almost completely rethink its setup before Saturday.
Work began immediately after FP2, with engineers analysing data trackside while colleagues at Maranello simultaneously started simulator work. Once again, Lewis Hamilton was among the final drivers to leave the paddock, spending several hours reviewing data alongside Head of Track Engineering Matteo Togninalli and his race engineer Carlo Santi.
Following FP2, the competitive order appears relatively clear: Mercedes leads the field, McLaren remains within striking distance, Red Bull has promising potential still to unlock, while Ferrari faces the biggest challenge of all. At Spielberg, consistency over an entire stint is crucial—and on Friday, Mercedes delivered it better than anyone else, while Ferrari must rediscover balance and consistency if it hopes to fight back in qualifying.
Leave a Reply