Ferrari, as was also clearly demonstrated during the Chinese Grand Prix weekend, has adopted a variety of different approaches to racing this season due to the inherent limitations of its available energy deployment and the relatively constrained energy envelope dictated by the current hybrid regulations.
With the first two races of the Formula 1 season now fully concluded, the Formula 1 paddock and the entire racing series are set to enjoy a well-earned and much-needed one-week break before the upcoming Japanese Grand Prix at the famous Suzuka Circuit. By analyzing the detailed outcomes and events in both Australia and China, it has been possible to gain a better understanding of the initial balance of performance among the leading teams, a set of figures and indicators that are always particularly intriguing and highly scrutinized at the start of any new regulatory cycle, especially one as significant as the current one.
The number of variables affecting performance is extensive, as we have already observed in both races, yet these variables are also closely interconnected and interdependent on each other in complex ways. This creates what could be described either as a virtuous cycle or a vicious cycle, depending on the specific scenario being considered, generating a mixture of advantages and disadvantages for teams, drivers, and even specific components of the car itself.
F1, Ferrari: Mercedes leverages the strengths of the W17
Charles Leclerc, immediately following Saturday afternoon qualifying, explained to the press that Ferrari had deliberately opted for a compromise setup that was more heavily focused on race performance rather than on outright qualifying speed. Taking into account the various graining challenges and tire management issues experienced by several teams during the initial practice sessions earlier in the weekend, it appears evident that the Ferrari SF-26 had been specifically configured to protect the front axle during the more critical phases of the race, minimizing any potential tire sliding and optimizing the car’s ability to remain within the ideal temperature window for the front tires as consistently as possible throughout each lap.
Graining in Formula 1 is a phenomenon that arises when the thermal management of the tires is not optimal, causing the surface of the tire to degrade unevenly and lose performance. Providing greater aerodynamic and mechanical load to the front of the car reduces the slip angles in corners, generating less tire sliding, particularly during medium- and high-speed turns. This effect can partially explain the speed differential observed between the two Ferrari SF-26 cars and the two Mercedes W17 cars during the very early stages of the Safety Car restarts. At that moment, the two Mercedes drivers, Kimi Antonelli and George Russell, found themselves experiencing a temporary “stall” in pace, while the two Ferrari drivers were able to transfer more energy effectively to the front axle and therefore maintain a slightly better pace.
Mercedes, however, has consistently appeared from the very start of the 2026 Formula 1 season as the most stable and balanced car on the grid, immediately achieving what appeared to be an ideal compromise in terms of setup and balance. This greater overall neutrality translates directly into better drivability for the drivers, which, in turn, leads to a more consistent and predictable level of performance when compared to their direct competitors on the track. This also ties directly into Charles Leclerc’s comments following qualifying on Saturday, highlighting the importance of maintaining a stable and consistent performance envelope.
The Monegasque driver emphasized that the concept of a flying lap has changed significantly with these new hybrid-powered Formula 1 cars. Attempting to execute a “perfect final run” on the last lap of qualifying could potentially have severe and even damaging repercussions on energy deployment and delivery. The car’s software, managed via highly sophisticated adaptive algorithms, can enter what might be described as an “overload phase,” during which multiple parameters are altered dynamically. In such situations, the system may either place the battery into a protective mode or deliver additional power to areas of the track where such energy was not initially planned. For this reason, maintaining a consistent and controlled driving style throughout each lap not only benefits the driver but also simplifies the operation of the complex software managing energy deployment.
Furthermore, it is important to consider the numerous wheel-to-wheel battles on track involving Lewis Hamilton, George Russell, and Charles Leclerc, which later reduced to a duel between the two Ferrari drivers alone. These battles undoubtedly influenced the final time gaps and track positions, especially for Kimi Antonelli, who occupied first place and had the ability to manage race conditions in a more controlled manner. Aggressive braking maneuvers naturally increase the energy transferred into the tires, which, in turn, also relates to the differences in power delivery capabilities between Ferrari and Mercedes, as well as the additional stress placed on the rear axle when exiting slow corners.
As has been observed, Mercedes holds a clear advantage during the second phase of longer straights, which allows their drivers to adopt a more conservative approach through corners, emphasizing consistency over outright pace. By contrast, the Ferrari drivers are forced to chase with a more limited energy envelope, which requires more aggressive deployment strategies in order to remain competitive on track.
F1, Ferrari: SF-26 at the mercy of a limited energy envelope
Considering the lack of completely reliable telemetry data from the Chinese Grand Prix, combined with the numerous on-track battles that almost certainly influenced the teams’ energy deployment strategies—which were likely more aggressive than usual in order to manage the frequent use of Boost and Overtake modes—Mercedes again emerges as the fastest car during the second phase of long straights, where the gap to Ferrari and other rivals becomes more pronounced.
Specifically, this discussion relates to areas of the lap affected by derating and super clipping, where the contribution of the car’s battery decreases progressively. While qualifying in China had shown the Mercedes W17 clearly capable of achieving higher maximum speeds than the Ferrari SF-26, this gap was significantly reduced during the race thanks to the variety of engine maps and power deployment strategies employed by Ferrari throughout the event.
It is clear that Ferrari made every effort to reduce the deficit to the Anglo-German cars along the straights. However, with a limited energy envelope, gains in one sector of the track inevitably come at the expense of performance in another sector. As a result, on average, the SF-26 appeared slower than the W17 in all corners of the circuit, which contrasts with the feedback from the drivers, who consistently highlighted the car’s excellent chassis performance and strong minimum cornering speeds relative to the rest of the field.
Telemetry from laps 19 and 56 of Charles Leclerc’s and George Russell’s second stints on hard tires confirms many of the impressions from Sunday’s race. During the first part of the stint, the Monegasque, while Russell was behind him on track, concentrated his energy harvesting in the initial two sectors of the circuit in order to unleash the maximum available power on the final long straight, reducing the Briton’s speed advantage in an effort to defend his position.
By lap 56, with effectively clear track ahead, Charles Leclerc reverted to a more traditional energy deployment strategy, which resulted in a noticeable gap in super-clipping, an effect that George Russell minimized due to his different deployment approach. On the first lap analyzed, the Monegasque driver reached his peak speed faster than his opponent, who prioritized reducing the negative effects of clipping rather than achieving outright top speed.
A similar trend was observed later in the race, where Russell’s advantage seemed to be amplified by Leclerc’s specific deployment strategy. This mirrored observations from the Australian Grand Prix, where the critical area for electrical power was emphasized by the lack of heavy braking zones that could recharge the battery effectively.
A deficit in available power makes it necessary to maximize recovery areas throughout the lap. Ferrari’s energy deployment strategy was therefore not perfectly optimized, which explains the potential performance gains that Lewis Hamilton referred to, achievable through both setup adjustments and deployment refinements.
Early in the stint, Charles Leclerc was clearly faster than Lewis Hamilton through the more technical sectors, but by the end of the race, the gap stabilized, with differences appearing primarily on the long straights. Ferrari, recognizing that they did not have a realistic chance against the W17, adopted an aggressive race approach, compounded by the heavy usage of hard tires by Leclerc in his battles with Lewis Hamilton compared to the less stressful engagement experienced by George Russell.
The thermal and internal combustion engine power advantage proves to be highly significant, allowing higher speeds in areas where the MGU-K contribution diminishes progressively. Ferrari’s likely larger and less compact turbocharger helps preserve the efficiency of energy delivery, a delicate and complex balance achieved through multiple interacting components. Charles Leclerc occasionally outperforms Lewis Hamilton during initial traction phases, only to gradually lose ground as the lap progresses and the energy contribution from the hybrid system fluctuates.
Partial-throttle harvesting phases remain crucial for recovering battery energy over short segments of the track, such as at turn 7, where Charles Leclerc increased his state-of-charge while maintaining 100% throttle, or at turns 11-12, where energy-saving strategies emphasized maximum ICE-generator use before long straights.
No single factor can explain Ferrari’s performance: the Chinese Grand Prix was a highly dynamic and complex race, making race pace and telemetry analysis extremely challenging. Rather, it represents a chain effect, in which the SF-26 relies more heavily on hybrid assistance at lower speeds, as demonstrated by state-of-charge data, which shows Leclerc’s State of Charge dropping before George Russell’s. This also ties back to the turbocharger, whose physical dimensions dictate different deployment strategies.
Managing turbo lag involves much more than just the turbo itself; it extends to intake manifolds, the plenum (heavily influenced by current technical regulations), wastegates, and a variety of other factors. It is far more complex than it appears on television, requiring viewers to acknowledge the limits of their understanding. Mercedes benefits from a dynamic advantage that can adapt to various race situations.
At Suzuka, the scenario will be considerably different: regenerative braking energy is expected to be lower than in China, but the areas available for partial-throttle harvesting will increase, where the German internal combustion engine advantage could become significantly more visible.
Leave a Reply