Ferrari ended Friday at Monza within striking distance of Mercedes, but the Scuderia faces an important setup dilemma before Italian Grand Prix qualifying. The updated SF-26 power unit has brought Ferrari closer to the benchmark on the straights, yet Mercedes still holds an advantage in outright speed, leaving the Maranello engineers to decide how much aerodynamic load they can afford to remove without making an already delicate balance more difficult for Lewis Hamilton.
Straight-line performance remains one of the defining factors at Monza even with Formula 1’s new-generation cars and active aerodynamics. Ferrari appears to have made progress with its latest engine specification, while further lap time could still come from improving the SF-26’s balance. McLaren faces its own set of problems in areas where it had previously excelled at Zandvoort, while Kimi Antonelli has concentrated heavily on race preparation ahead of an expected recovery drive from the back.
Ferrari closes on Mercedes but straight-line speed remains decisive
Mercedes finished the opening day of track action on top, with George Russell only one tenth of a second ahead of Charles Leclerc. The margin is small enough for the balance of power to move in either direction depending on how effectively both teams optimise the many variables in their packages before qualifying.
Monza itself is also behaving differently with the 2026 cars. Somewhat surprisingly, the new generation is proving faster through the corners than its predecessors. Active aerodynamics allows teams to retain a useful level of downforce through the bends before opening the wings and shedding aerodynamic resistance on the straights.
Even with that technology, top speed remains crucial, and this is currently where Mercedes has its clearest advantage over Ferrari. The Scuderia is fighting back with its updated engine, whose first track running has confirmed progress both in driveability and, more significantly, in power. The wider picture behind the Ferrari SF-26 power unit upgrade at Monza shows why efficiency and electrical deployment are just as important as a simple horsepower figure.
Quantifying the exact power increase remains difficult because straight-line speeds are strongly influenced by electrical energy deployment strategies, which still differ considerably between teams. At present, Mercedes appears to prioritise deployment on the straights in the opening two sectors, whereas Ferrari saves more of its power unit output for the return straight later in the lap. It remains to be seen whether those approaches will converge when qualifying begins.
The contrasting philosophies have been particularly visible in the telemetry, with a more detailed comparison of Ferrari and Mercedes energy deployment at Monza highlighting how differently the two teams distribute their available electrical energy around the lap.
Ferrari must choose between more top speed and better SF-26 balance
Ferrari will now evaluate whether to take more aerodynamic load off the SF-26 in search of a few additional kilometres per hour on the straights. However, that solution risks conflicting directly with another requirement of the car.
Lewis Hamilton has complained about the balance and driveability of the SF-26, and those problems can have consequences beyond simply making the car less comfortable to drive. An unstable or difficult balance can compromise tyre performance and also make efficient energy management harder to achieve over a lap.
The challenge for the Maranello engineers overnight is therefore to find a compromise. Ferrari needs more straight-line performance to attack Mercedes, but unloading the car too aggressively could worsen the behaviour that Lewis Hamilton already wants improved. The team will attempt to exploit whatever performance margin remains in the SF-26 without sacrificing the qualities that allowed Charles Leclerc to finish so close to George Russell on Friday.
Ferrari has already modified elements of its low-drag package for this weekend, including changes to the SF-26 FTM aimed at reducing drag and improving efficiency. The central question is now how far the Scuderia can continue down that path before the aerodynamic compromise becomes counterproductive.
Slipstream and tyre temperatures could shape Monza qualifying
Execution will be another major factor over the next two days. Free practice demonstrated that the slipstream remains extremely effective despite active aerodynamics, meaning qualifying could reward the drivers who manage to position themselves at the correct distance behind the car ahead.
That adds another variable to a field already separated by very small margins. A well-timed tow could influence the outcome significantly, making track position and preparation laps particularly important when drivers begin fighting for the final tenths.
Tyres will be another central issue. Track temperature exceeded 50°C on Friday, making it very easy to overheat the tyres even within a single lap. For Ferrari, that could actually be encouraging. At Zandvoort, the Scuderia had struggled with the opposite problem, finding it difficult to bring the tyres up to temperature quickly enough for the beginning of a flying lap.
The warmer Monza conditions therefore change the nature of the challenge. Instead of generating sufficient temperature before the timed lap, Ferrari must ensure the tyres do not cross the optimal window too early. Getting that preparation right could prove just as important as any small aerodynamic adjustment.
Race pace suggests overtaking opportunities could reduce qualifying importance
Qualifying may nevertheless carry slightly less weight than usual. The large differences in how teams manage electrical energy mean cars are expected to reach different speeds at different points around the circuit during the race. That should create significant overtaking opportunities as one car gains deployment where another begins to run short.
Tyre degradation also appeared relatively contained on Friday. The early indication points towards a one-stop race, although all three compounds could be relevant. That uncertainty was reflected in FP2, when the leading teams deliberately completed their long-run simulations on different tyres, making it difficult to establish a definitive race-pace hierarchy.
Ferrari’s pace on the soft compound was broadly in line with George Russell’s Mercedes on the hard tyres. The McLaren simulations, by contrast, were too short to support firm conclusions. A separate Italian GP race-pace analysis provides further context on the close margins seen in the Friday long runs.
FP2 long-run lap times
- George Russell – Hard (+8 laps): 1:26.4, 1:26.3, 1:26.2, 1:26.0, 1:26.1, 1:25.9, traffic, 1:25.7, 1:26.2.
- Lando Norris – Hard (+7 laps): 1:26.4, 1:26.3, 1:26.7, 1:26.3, high, 1:26.9.
- Oscar Piastri – Hard (+7 laps): 1:26.5, 1:26.3, 1:26.9, 1:27.2.
- Lewis Hamilton – Soft (+6 laps): 1:26.4, 1:26.6, 1:26.4, 1:26.0, 1:26.4, 1:26.0, 1:26.3, 1:25.8.
- Charles Leclerc – Soft (+5 laps): 1:27.1, 1:26.2, 1:26.2, spin, high, 1:26.0, 1:26.0, 1:26.3, 1:26.1, 1:25.7.
- Max Verstappen – Medium (+11 laps): 1:26.6, 1:26.5, 1:26.6, 1:26.7, 1:26.1.
McLaren struggles where it had previously been strongest
McLaren, winner of the previous two Grands Prix, began its Italian Grand Prix weekend with more difficulties than expected. One positive is that its new inverted movable wing is functioning correctly, but the MCL40 continues to lose time on the straights, confirming concerns that had already surrounded the team before the weekend.
McLaren acknowledges that there is work to do on energy management, although the room for improvement is not limited to the power unit side. The chassis is also proving problematic at Monza. Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri struggled in the high-speed corners, precisely the areas in which the car had previously made a significant difference at Zandvoort and Budapest.
The team also carried out an unusual experiment during its race simulation. Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri ran in each other’s slipstream and swapped positions, allowing McLaren to evaluate the effect of the tow and investigate how energy could be managed more effectively when attacking or defending.
Red Bull struggles while midfield battle tightens
Red Bull’s situation looked considerably more difficult. Max Verstappen complained about insufficient downforce in the high-speed corners, poor grip through the slower sections and a car that was bouncing.
The Milton Keynes team appeared to sit between the leading group and the midfield, which was headed by Racing Bulls. The Faenza-based team is now also equipped with the inverted movable wing. Audi, Haas and Alpine are among the teams positioned to challenge Racing Bulls, with Haas finally bringing updates and Alpine’s developments now also fitted to Franco Colapinto’s car.
Kimi Antonelli focuses on race recovery and helping George Russell
Kimi Antonelli faces a different weekend to the other front-running drivers because the Italian is preparing to recover from the back of the grid. His Friday programme was therefore heavily focused on the race, culminating in a particularly long 19-lap simulation on the hard compound.
That preparation is especially relevant if the race develops as expected, with frequent position changes and significant opportunities to overtake because of the different energy-management profiles. Kimi Antonelli’s long-run work suggests Mercedes is already concentrating heavily on how he can make progress through the field.
His qualifying role will instead be to provide a slipstream for George Russell. That tow could become an important advantage for Mercedes in a session where the effect appeared particularly powerful during practice. Fred Vasseur has already indicated that Ferrari intends to maximise both of its cars rather than sacrifice one for the other, making the different Ferrari and Mercedes qualifying approaches another intriguing element of the fight.
For Ferrari, everything therefore comes back to the same compromise. The updated engine has moved the SF-26 closer to Mercedes and Friday showed that the gap is small, but the Scuderia still has to decide how aggressively to chase straight-line speed without undermining balance, tyre behaviour and energy management. If Maranello can find that solution overnight, George Russell’s one-tenth advantage may prove far from decisive.
Leave a Reply