Ferrari emerged from Sepang looking like at least Formula 1’s second force, with an outstanding Lewis Hamilton recovering to the podium after the team’s costly tyre decision at the start. The SF-26 remained extremely strong through the corners, while Mercedes encountered unexpected problems with its new aerodynamic package during a chaotic Bahrain Grand Prix weekend at Sepang.
The Malaysian circuit also delivered an immediate reminder of why it became an F1 classic. Formula 1’s return to Sepang – even if officially under Bahrain colours – evoked the atmosphere of the early 2000s, and a downpour arriving just around the scheduled start immediately disrupted strategies and the established performance order. As the race developed, however, it also revealed a great deal about the strengths and weaknesses of the leading cars.
The track refused to dry and only a few teams read the conditions correctly
The first major decision concerned which tyre to use at the start. The grid was split almost in half, although a slight majority opted for slicks. Ferrari and McLaren were among them, but Oscar Piastri changed his mind during the formation lap, returned to the pits and chose to start from the back on intermediates after correctly sensing what was really happening on track.
It is important to judge that decision as objectively as possible. From a distance, the impression was not only that the circuit was relatively lightly wet, but also that the high temperatures could allow it to dry extremely quickly. Drivers themselves could be heard reporting over the radio that conditions were improving at an extraordinary rate, making slick tyres appear to be the logical choice. Ferrari’s messages to Lewis Hamilton followed exactly that logic: the task was to “survive for one lap”, after which the initial gamble was expected to begin paying off.
That did not happen, mainly for two reasons. The first was that Sepang’s old, low-grip asphalt made the damp surface almost impossible to negotiate on slick tyres. Drivers who started on dry-weather rubber lost between 30 and 40 seconds on the opening lap alone, immediately wiping out the roughly 26 seconds they could potentially have gained by avoiding a pit stop.
The second factor was the extremely high humidity. Once the initial surface water had drained away, the circuit took much longer than expected to become genuinely dry. The behaviour of the different compounds had already been one of the major questions surrounding Ferrari’s tyre prospects at Sepang, and the unusual race conditions made that judgement even more difficult.
Those factors clearly caught most teams by surprise. There is, however, an important counterpoint: Red Bull and Mercedes did not make the same mistake. Both chose intermediates without hesitation and disappeared up the road during the opening laps, building advantages of more than a minute over parts of the group that had remained on slicks.
The circumstances were unusual enough to mislead many teams, but the organisations that have most consistently demonstrated a strong understanding of changing track conditions made the correct call. Charles Leclerc later expressed much the same concept, highlighting an area Ferrari will inevitably need to improve. The evolution of the compounds and stints can also be explored through the F1 Tyre & Stint Analysis.
Kimi Antonelli all but ends the title fight as Mercedes encounters problems
Kimi Antonelli’s second place, combined with George Russell’s retirement, has reduced the championship fight to little more than a mathematical question. The young Italian could realistically secure the Formula 1 world title around the middle of the remaining part of the season.
It would nevertheless be unfair to attribute the result simply to good fortune. Sepang was a constant trap, beginning with the difficult opening laps in the wet, yet Kimi Antonelli made virtually no mistakes. He was fast, decisive and able to reclaim position from George Russell cleanly before eventually establishing a clear advantage over his team-mate on race pace.
The combination of a champion’s talent with the calmness and clarity usually associated with a far more experienced driver remains remarkable considering Kimi Antonelli’s age. George Russell’s retirement therefore accelerated the situation in the championship rather than creating it, because the sporting verdict between the two Mercedes drivers had already begun to emerge on track.
There was also another important element behind the retirement. George Russell stopped with a power unit failure and, based on the available data, the impression was that the internal combustion engine had suffered the problem. Mercedes had already been concerned about the British driver’s power unit and was understood to have proposed replacing it in Baku.
George Russell instead appears to have preferred taking the risk, waiting for the ADUO unit and attempting to maximise points in an already difficult pursuit of Kimi Antonelli. The gamble contributed to victory in Azerbaijan, but it also came with an enormous price at Sepang and could potentially lead to a grid penalty in Singapore, one of the least favourable circuits on which to serve one.
The task of catching Kimi Antonelli now resembles an almost impossible mountain for George Russell. Even before the technical problem, Sepang had already indicated the superiority of the younger Mercedes driver, leaving relatively little for the Briton to regret from a purely performance-related perspective.
Mercedes aero package creates unexpected Sepang problems
Mercedes itself, however, clearly has plenty of work ahead after the disappointing behaviour of its new aerodynamic package. The impression is that the team attempted to strengthen the rear of the car further, probably with the objective of unlocking additional engine performance during the coming races.
On Sepang’s low-grip asphalt, however, that appears to have left the front end too weak. The result was significant understeer, particularly through the slow corners. The new package also increased aerodynamic load, but at the cost of additional drag.
That rise in resistance was poorly absorbed by the power unit. Mercedes showed clear difficulties with energy deployment and engineers were forced to modify strategies even during qualifying, without being able to exploit the exceptional straight-line performance previously seen from the car. The issues add further context to questions surrounding the development of the Mercedes W17.
It provides another indication of a wider characteristic of this generation of Formula 1 cars: efficiency is fundamental to overall performance, perhaps even more important than absolute downforce. Mercedes will naturally work to optimise the package and will also need to reassess it on circuits with different asphalt characteristics. Toto Wolff nevertheless appeared particularly angry after the race, and the reasons were not difficult to understand.
Ferrari at least second force as Lewis Hamilton produces remarkable comeback
After Ferrari’s strategic mistake at the start, Lewis Hamilton’s recovery to the podium was an exceptional drive, reminiscent of both Ferrari and the seven-time world champion at their best. The SF-26 inevitably continued to lose performance on the straights, but it remained the strongest car through the corners even across race-distance running.
The performances and comments from the two Ferrari drivers initially seemed to present different pictures of the car’s potential. In our assessment, however, much of that contrast came from the very different sensations Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc experienced behind the wheel.
Lewis Hamilton believed that starting on intermediates would have given him the opportunity to fight Max Verstappen for victory. The British driver’s recovery was aided by one of the most successful setup compromises he has found since joining Maranello, making the Sepang race another significant chapter in his Ferrari campaign.
Lewis Hamilton felt extremely comfortable with the SF-26 after finding a setup close to ideal for his driving style. The rear of the car was well protected while the front remained strong enough to minimise understeer. It was probably one of the best levels of harmony between the seven-time world champion and a Ferrari since his arrival at Maranello.
With a heavy fuel load, tyre degradation to manage and the power units initially operating at reduced output because of the wet conditions, it is therefore reasonable to believe Lewis Hamilton could genuinely have troubled Max Verstappen. He would also almost certainly have been ahead of the Mercedes cars on outright performance.
Charles Leclerc experienced a very different weekend. The Monegasque driver had already moved away from his ideal setup window on Saturday and then struggled considerably with rear-end management during the race. In his post-race team radio, he went as far as describing his pace as “horrible”. Those difficulties help explain why his assessment of the SF-26’s potential differed so much from that of his team-mate.
Charles Leclerc believed Ferrari’s third and fourth places were broadly where the team would have finished even in a straightforward race. His difficulties also underlined how sensitive the car remained to setup choices, an aspect that will continue to be important across the remainder of Charles Leclerc’s season.
Ferrari’s cornering strength remains clear, but straight-line weakness persists
What happened in Malaysia nevertheless reconfirmed several characteristics already visible earlier in the season. Ferrari probably possesses the strongest car in the corners and is also good at managing its tyres, but it continues to pay a price in engine performance and resistance during traction phases and at higher speeds.
Those are precisely the areas that appear to matter most in the current Formula 1 regulations. The SF-26 can generate impressive cornering performance, but efficiency and energy deployment remain decisive when acceleration and straight-line speed become more important. The broader technical picture can be followed through ScuderiaFans’ Ferrari technical analysis.
The contrast was particularly visible at Sepang, where Lewis Hamilton could exploit the Ferrari’s balance and cornering ability but still surrendered performance on the straights. Recorded speed differences across Formula 1 can be compared through the F1 Top Speed Comparison.
McLaren struggles with drag and an unusual soft-tyre problem
McLaren, meanwhile, endured a second consecutive disastrous weekend. At Sepang, the MCL40 displayed excessive drag on the straights, but the bigger concern was a very specific problem with the soft tyre that was difficult to understand from the outside.
Unfortunately for the Woking team, both qualifying and most of the race were run on that compound. It was therefore notable that Lando Norris attempted to start on mediums, while the only stage of the race in which Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri appeared reasonably competitive came when they switched to the hard tyres.
The drivers also fell short for the second consecutive race. Oscar Piastri remained inexplicably stuck behind Liam Lawson before Lewis Hamilton effectively drove away from him, prompting a team-radio reaction that, at least conceptually, recalled the famous exchange involving Giancarlo Fisichella in Australia in 2006.
Lando Norris, meanwhile, ran deep under the Safety Car and lost positions and points as a consequence. The papaya car still displays good characteristics through the corners, but if the objective of the Baku package was to eliminate its drag problem, the evidence so far suggests that target has not yet been achieved.
Singapore provides the next major test
Formula 1 now moves only a short distance to Singapore for the final Sprint weekend of the season. The competitive order is likely to change again compared with the previous two races, making Marina Bay a particularly interesting test of how much performance Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren and their rivals can actually extract from their respective packages. The remaining events can be followed through the 2026 Formula 1 calendar.
Leave a Reply