Ferrari’s ADUO2 power-unit upgrade delivered a measurable improvement at Monza, but the data also highlighted where Mercedes continues to hold an important advantage. The Italian Grand Prix provided the toughest possible test for the new Ferrari specification, and the comparisons from the weekend suggest that the SF-26 has recovered performance under acceleration without completely closing the gap in electrical energy management and deployment.
Did Ferrari really reduce its deficit to Mercedes with the new ADUO2 power-unit update? Monza offered perhaps the clearest answer possible. With its long straights, prolonged full-throttle sections and heavy emphasis on power-unit efficiency, the Italian circuit left very few opportunities to disguise weaknesses. The technical analysis paints an encouraging but incomplete picture: ADUO2 represents a genuine step forward, yet Mercedes remains the benchmark when the electrical side of the 2026 power unit becomes decisive.
Monza was the toughest possible test for Ferrari ADUO2
Monza remains the circuit where power-unit performance matters more than almost anywhere else on the Formula 1 calendar. Its long straights, extended periods at full throttle and relatively limited number of corners make it extremely difficult to compensate for a deficit in either outright power or energy deployment.
That was precisely why Ferrari chose Monza to introduce the ADUO2 update, developed through the FIA concessions available to manufacturers showing a performance deficit in the internal combustion engine compared with the strongest power units on the grid.
The objective was straightforward: reduce the gap to Mercedes without compromising reliability or energy management. Ferrari had already focused heavily on extracting more from its 2026 package, with the SF-26 power-unit development programme extending beyond a simple search for additional horsepower.
Did Ferrari ADUO2 actually improve performance?
The answer appears to be yes, although with several important qualifications.
Analysis of the Monza data indicates that Ferrari improved the acceleration phase in specific parts of the circuit. The upgrade appears to have increased the efficiency of the internal combustion engine and improved power availability under certain operating conditions.
Ferrari’s revisions also included work on the turbocharger, where the ADUO-2 development focused on revised compressor and turbine components while maintaining a broadly comparable architecture.
The difficulty is that Mercedes’ advantage continues to become apparent when the electrical side of the power unit enters the equation. Put simply, Ferrari has recovered some ground, but Mercedes still appears to set the standard when the battery, electric motor and energy-management strategy all have to work together during prolonged acceleration.
Bearman vs Ocon provides the clearest ADUO2 comparison
Perhaps the most revealing comparison of the entire weekend came not from Ferrari itself, but from Haas.
Oliver Bearman used the new Ferrari ADUO2 power unit, while Esteban Ocon competed with the previous Ferrari engine specification. That created an unusually valuable comparison between two broadly similar cars running two different versions of the same manufacturer’s power unit during the same race weekend.
The speed traces show a particularly noticeable difference on the section leading towards the Variante Ascari and on the acceleration that follows.
What the Monza data shows
- Oliver Bearman gains approximately 5-6 km/h on the straight following Ascari.
- Through the Lesmo corners, Oliver Bearman maintains a slightly higher minimum and cornering speed.
- Acceleration out of the corners is more effective with the new Ferrari power unit.
- Esteban Ocon recovers part of the deficit only towards the final section of the straight through a different deployment strategy.
Those differences point towards a genuine improvement from ADUO2, particularly during the power-delivery phase. They also provide one of the most useful indications yet of what Ferrari’s latest development has actually changed, rather than relying solely on theoretical power estimates.
How much are those extra 5-6 km/h really worth?
The figure has to be interpreted carefully.
Assuming the two Haas cars were running broadly comparable aerodynamic and mechanical configurations, a difference of around 5-6 km/h in that section could correspond to an estimated increase of approximately 10 kW under the conditions being analysed.
This is not an official figure supplied by Ferrari. It is a technical estimate based on the comparison between two Ferrari-powered cars competing during the same weekend.
The conclusion is therefore more nuanced than simply claiming a fixed horsepower gain. ADUO2 appears to provide a measurable step forward, but the improvement remains relatively limited. That fits with Ferrari’s wider approach to the Italian Grand Prix, where Charles Leclerc had already discussed the engine and floor developments introduced around the Monza weekend.
The real Ferrari-Mercedes gap could be electrical
This is where the most important element of the analysis emerges.
The 2026 regulations give every manufacturer the same headline limits:
- 350 kW of maximum electric-motor power.
- 8 MJ of energy available in race conditions.
- 5 MJ available in qualifying.
On paper, every manufacturer therefore operates within the same regulatory framework. What changes in practice is the efficiency of the complete hybrid system.
The efficiency of the power electronics, electric motor, battery and energy-conversion processes determines how effectively the available energy can ultimately be transformed into performance at the wheels. It is in this area that Mercedes appears to retain a significant advantage.
That distinction is crucial because the 2026 Formula 1 power unit cannot be assessed by looking at combustion-engine output in isolation. Ferrari may have improved the thermal side of its package, but the complete system determines how much usable performance reaches the rear wheels and for how long it can be sustained.
Deployment remains an area where Mercedes makes the difference
During the Italian Grand Prix, Ferrari was able to close on McLaren and Mercedes when it had access to Overtake Mode and a larger reserve of electrical energy.
Once that reserve had been depleted, however, the SF-26 progressively lost acceleration on Monza’s longer straights. This behaviour suggests that Ferrari may still be less efficient than Mercedes in the management of deployment.
The difference is not simply about how much energy is available. Just as important is how that energy is distributed around the lap, when maximum electrical assistance is used and how effectively the system balances harvesting with deployment.
Mercedes’ advantage in this area has become one of the defining technical themes of the new regulations. The team’s wider 2026 performance can also be followed through Mercedes technical and race coverage.
Did Lewis Hamilton really have McLaren’s race pace?
The data portrays a somewhat different race from the one that could be seen simply by following the television pictures.
During the opening stint, Lewis Hamilton was very close to McLaren’s pace and was able to defend his position during the early stages after the restart. At that point, Ferrari remained competitive enough for the British driver to stay involved with the cars ahead.
The picture subsequently changed. Ferrari left Lewis Hamilton on track during the Virtual Safety Car, with the seven-time world champion completing almost 50 laps on the Medium tyre while McLaren was able to exploit the Hard compound during the final part of the race.
As the stint continued, maintaining the same race pace became increasingly difficult for Lewis Hamilton. The tyre offset therefore has to be considered alongside the power-unit comparison when assessing Ferrari’s ultimate performance.
Ferrari’s Virtual Safety Car strategy becomes a key factor
The decision not to pit Lewis Hamilton during the Virtual Safety Car remains one of the key moments of Ferrari’s Italian Grand Prix.
Two possible considerations could have influenced the decision:
- the risk of the Virtual Safety Car period ending while Lewis Hamilton was completing his pit stop;
- the desire to preserve track position.
With hindsight, a fresh set of tyres would probably have helped Ferrari during the second half of the race, when Lewis Hamilton began losing ground. His eventual sixth-place finish therefore reflected not only the SF-26’s performance characteristics but also the strategic and tyre-management circumstances of the race.
Further analysis of Lewis Hamilton’s season and Ferrari performances is available through the Lewis Hamilton Ferrari archive.
Kimi Antonelli’s Monza race pace stands out
One of the most significant graphs from the Italian Grand Prix concerns Kimi Antonelli.
The Mercedes driver recorded the strongest average race pace of the entire Grand Prix and was able to progressively lower his lap times as the race developed. The combination of Hard tyres, effective energy management and the Mercedes power unit generated a level of performance Ferrari was unable to reproduce.
Lewis Hamilton remained relatively close to McLaren during the first part of the race but averaged approximately one second slower than Kimi Antonelli. That gap cannot be attributed to one factor alone, but it illustrates how effectively the Mercedes package combined tyre performance, electrical deployment and overall race efficiency at Monza.
Why Monza is no longer simply the Temple of Speed
The 2026 regulations have also fundamentally changed the nature of Monza.
Paradoxically, the Italian circuit no longer necessarily produces the highest top speeds of the Formula 1 season. Three factors help explain the change:
- the greater aerodynamic drag generated by the new cars;
- the need to manage electrical energy throughout the straights;
- the phenomenon of super clipping, when available electrical deployment falls away beyond a certain speed.
The result is a car that can reach its maximum available acceleration quickly before the rate of speed increase begins to flatten in a way that was less pronounced during previous regulatory cycles.
This made Ferrari’s overall efficiency especially important at Monza. The team also modified the SF-26 FTM configuration to reduce drag, but low aerodynamic resistance alone could not eliminate the effect of different energy-management characteristics.
Ferrari ADUO2 limited the damage, but Mercedes remains the benchmark
The ADUO2 debut therefore provided encouraging indications for Ferrari.
The update improved the combustion side of the power unit and reduced part of the deficit that had emerged at faster circuits. The Bearman-Ocon comparison is particularly valuable because it points towards a tangible performance improvement rather than merely a theoretical gain.
However, Monza also highlighted that Mercedes continues to operate with a more effective overall energy-management package. Ferrari leaves the Italian Grand Prix with a better power unit, but still short of the benchmark when the behaviour of the entire hybrid system is taken into account.
The distinction matters. Closing the internal-combustion deficit is one part of the challenge, but Ferrari must simultaneously optimise its battery, power electronics, electrical deployment and the interaction between every element of the system. The Ferrari technical development programme will therefore remain one of the most important areas to follow during the second half of 2026.
The next circuits will reveal the true value of Ferrari ADUO2
The real test will come at the next, more technical circuits, where ADUO2 could allow Ferrari to make better use of the work completed by its engineers at Maranello.
Tracks with different combinations of cornering speeds, shorter acceleration phases and different energy-recovery demands should reveal whether the Monza upgrade was simply an initial step or the beginning of a more significant Ferrari recovery during the second half of the 2026 season.
Monza provided the harshest possible examination of the new specification, and ADUO2 did not erase Ferrari’s deficit. What it did provide was something equally important for the development programme: evidence of measurable progress and a clearer indication of where the next gains need to be found.
Ferrari has recovered something on the combustion side. The remaining question is whether the Scuderia can now make the same progress with electrical efficiency and deployment, the areas in which Mercedes still appeared to hold the decisive advantage at Monza.
Leave a Reply