Ferrari’s SF-26 looked firmly in the fight with Mercedes on Friday at Monza, helped by a strong setup, improved power unit performance and another highly effective electrical energy deployment strategy. The second practice session for the Italian Grand Prix offered a relatively clear picture of how the cars were behaving and, above all, how the teams were using energy around the lap, with Ferrari and Mercedes adopting markedly different approaches.
As always at Monza, the engine modes used on Friday still leave several unanswered questions, so the definitive competitive order will only become clearer when the power units are pushed harder. Nevertheless, the data produced several particularly interesting indications, especially when comparing the updated Ferrari SF-26 Power Unit with Mercedes.
Ferrari SF-26 strongest in Monza’s slow corners
According to the data, the SF-26 was the strongest car through the two slowest chicanes at Monza: the Prima Variante and the Variante della Roggia. The Maranello car was especially effective during changes of direction and when accelerating away from the corners, showing a good combination of turn-in response and traction.
The setup did, however, appear slightly less forgiving than it had been in FP1. During his race-pace simulation, Charles Leclerc effectively “dropped” off the kerb at the Roggia and ended up spinning. That moment illustrated how narrow the operating margin could become when attacking Monza’s kerbs, even though Ferrari’s overall balance remained encouraging. The team’s broader SF-26 package developed for Monza efficiency appeared to give the drivers a competitive platform.
Charles Leclerc also looked slightly more comfortable with the car than Lewis Hamilton. The Monegasque appeared to struggle only at the first chicane before displaying a little more grip than his team-mate through the remainder of the lap, together with greater energy effectiveness as the speed increased.
Although Charles Leclerc did not finish FP2 with the fastest lap, his performance was effectively on the same level as George Russell’s. An imperfect exit from the Parabolica ultimately made the difference in favour of the British Mercedes driver. Almost every car was reaching the exit of Monza’s final corner with very little electrical energy remaining in the battery, meaning even a small hesitation through or out of the Parabolica could have a significant impact on the lap time at the finish line.
Ferrari and Mercedes use opposite energy strategies at Monza
The most interesting comparison, however, concerns electrical energy management from the power unit. Mercedes tends to distribute its available energy across the first three major full-throttle sections of the circuit, spending a substantial amount during the opening part of the lap. By the time the W17 reaches the section between Ascari and the Parabolica, it appears to have considerably less energy left to deploy.
Ferrari follows almost the opposite philosophy, in an approach similar in some respects to what was previously seen at Silverstone. The SF-26 gives away some performance on the earlier straights by using less electrical energy, before concentrating a very significant level of deployment from the exit of Ascari all the way to the braking zone for the Parabolica.
The outcome is significant. By effectively limiting its losses across the first three long acceleration zones and then releasing energy precisely where its rivals begin to struggle, Ferrari creates the largest possible performance differential in its favour. Across that section, the SF-26 is able to wipe out almost all the straight-line deficit accumulated earlier in the lap. The same trend was visible in a broader Ferrari-Mercedes power unit comparison from Monza FP2.
Other teams were also seen beginning to move towards a similar deployment strategy during the session. Despite the obvious limitations that Ferrari’s engineers must work around, their ability to continually devise energy strategies for demanding circuits such as Monza has once again proved highly effective. They have been finding solutions towards which other competitors then appear to converge.
What Ferrari’s new engine could reveal against Mercedes
The data indicates that virtually all of the power unit deficit accumulated by Ferrari across the first two-thirds of the lap is recovered by the SF-26 between Ascari and the Parabolica. If that pattern remains intact when more aggressive engine modes are used, particularly in qualifying, it could provide an important indication of a significant step forward from Ferrari’s new power unit.
That comparison is particularly relevant because Mercedes remains the reference power unit, leaving the ADUO classification aside. Ferrari’s latest development is therefore facing one of its most revealing tests at Monza. The team has introduced its latest engine evolution for the Italian Grand Prix, with the ADUO-2 engine upgrade forming part of its Monza programme.
The key qualification is that Friday still does not reveal how much power unit performance each manufacturer has kept in reserve. The competitive picture seen in FP2 could therefore change once the engines are operated more aggressively in FP3 and, above all, qualifying.
McLaren strong through the Lesmos but vulnerable on the straights
McLaren, meanwhile, confirmed many of the characteristics that could have been expected at Monza. The Woking car performed very well through the medium-speed sections, particularly the two Lesmo corners, where it could exploit its downforce level and highly effective aerodynamic platform.
The MCL40 struggled more through the slow Roggia and Prima Variante chicanes, although slightly less than might have been expected. The more serious problem emerged after Ascari. From that point onwards, the McLaren appeared to run almost completely out of electrical energy and lost a huge amount of time along the long straight leading towards the Parabolica.
In practical terms, Lando Norris’ lap followed a similar profile to Charles Leclerc’s until Ascari. The difference came afterwards. Charles Leclerc was able to release the energy Ferrari had conserved for the final straight, whereas Lando Norris was already operating with a significantly depleted battery.
It remains unclear how much of that behaviour is simply caused by the car’s aerodynamic drag and how much may be related to other factors, including gearbox ratio management. The data showed McLaren running around 500rpm higher than its main rivals for much of the lap because of its very short gear ratios. That characteristic could become particularly costly at Monza, where the cars spend such a large proportion of the lap at or close to maximum speed.
Race pace puts Kimi Antonelli, Ferrari and George Russell in the fight
On race pace, Kimi Antonelli produced an extremely competitive rhythm and sustained it across a very long stint. Ferrari nevertheless also appeared to be in very good shape. The SF-26 race-pace references were essentially in line with those of George Russell and, based on Friday alone, the indications suggest that Ferrari and the Mercedes number 63 could find themselves in a direct battle.
The long-run picture also showed how competitive the leading cars were over sustained running, with a separate Monza race-pace analysis comparing Charles Leclerc and Kimi Antonelli highlighting the tight margins that emerged during the simulations.
Before drawing definitive conclusions, however, it will be necessary to understand how much power unit margin each team still has available. Ferrari appeared to run its new engine at a relatively high level already in FP1 before increasing it only slightly for FP2. Mercedes, by contrast, appeared to begin the day very conservatively before raising its performance level in the second session.
Overall, the impression is that Mercedes may still have more performance to extract, particularly through the well-known “qualifying map” available to the Brackley team. Confirmation will have to wait until FP3 and, most importantly, qualifying itself. That uncertainty is also why Fred Vasseur was unwilling to read too much into Mercedes finishing ahead in FP2, with the Ferrari team principal noting the differences in fuel loads and engine modes during Friday practice.
Slipstream battle could create qualifying chaos at Monza
The final major uncertainty concerns qualifying. Slipstreaming has always carried considerable importance at Monza, but with the gaps between the cars so small and meaningful differences also emerging in energy management, track positioning could become particularly important.
From the limited evidence available during practice, receiving a tow appeared to offer a greater lap-time advantage than in previous years. George Russell should be able to benefit from assistance from Kimi Antonelli, something Toto Wolff had already indicated directly.
The risk is that, if the slipstream advantage proves as significant as it appeared during practice, qualifying could produce the familiar fight among drivers attempting to position themselves behind another car. With such small performance margins, that battle for a tow could create genuine chaos on track from as early as Q1.
Leave a Reply