Ferrari has repeatedly struggled to extract the final tenths from the SF-26 in qualifying this season, limiting its chances of converting genuine race performance into stronger results. The issue is particularly visible between Q2 and Q3, where data shows Mercedes drivers finding almost two tenths more improvement on average than their Ferrari counterparts.
The power-unit deficit remains part of the explanation, but it is not the only factor. Ferrari’s problem also reflects the fundamental characteristics of the SF-26: a car that can manage its tyres effectively over a race stint but finds it more difficult to bring them rapidly into the correct operating window for a single qualifying lap. The contrast between those two characteristics has become one of the recurring themes of Ferrari’s technical analysis in 2026.
Ferrari qualifying weakness goes beyond the power unit
The problem reached one of its clearest expressions in Baku. The circuit’s long straights allowed tyre temperatures to fall, while the very smooth asphalt and relatively small number of corners meant there were fewer opportunities to put energy into the tyres.
Every team suffered from the issue to some degree, but Ferrari appeared particularly exposed. Both drivers found themselves dealing with a car that was stiffer, more nervous and, as Charles Leclerc explained, at times “unpredictable”. The difficulties were more significant than the eventual second place in qualifying suggested, especially because the session was also influenced by slipstreams. The wider limitations exposed by the Azerbaijan weekend also raised questions over where the SF-26 now sits in Formula 1’s competitive order.
The qualifying issue is broader than one circuit. A recurring feeling among Ferrari’s drivers this season has been that, when the final decisive tenths are available on a single lap, the SF-26 struggles more than its rivals to extract them from the tyres. This can happen in the transition from Q2 to Q3, or even between the first and second attempts in the final qualifying segment.
Mercedes finds almost two tenths more than Ferrari from Q2 to Q3
The data supports that impression. Looking across the season and excluding qualifying sessions affected by external factors such as yellow flags, slipstream games, obvious mistakes or other unusual circumstances, a relatively clear pattern emerges: Mercedes drivers gain almost two tenths more on average than Ferrari drivers when moving from Q2 to Q3.
The progression can be explored in greater detail through the ScuderiaFans F1 Qualifying Pace & Sector Comparison, which tracks qualifying gaps, sector performance and progression through the sessions.
Kimi Antonelli is regularly able to place inside the top three in Q2, with an average position of 2.615, while George Russell averages around fifth. The significant point is what happens next. With an average improvement of more than half a second, Kimi Antonelli moves to an average Q3 position of second, while George Russell rises to just over third, gaining almost two grid positions compared with his Q2 average.
It would be easy to assume that different engine mappings between qualifying segments are responsible for much of that progression, but they do not appear to play such a decisive role. Mercedes has a versatile car and a performance margin, particularly on the straights, which means its drivers can afford to push less aggressively through the corners during the earlier stages before extracting more performance in Q3.
That broader performance margin is consistent with the strength Mercedes has demonstrated across the season, with further context available in the analysis of the Mercedes W17’s 2026 performance.
There is another revealing detail. Mercedes drivers often manage to preserve two new sets of tyres for Q3, yet they are still among those who gain the most between their two attempts in the final segment. The improvement is around three and a half tenths, greater than that achieved by Charles Leclerc or several other drivers who sometimes have to complete their first Q3 attempt on used tyres.
The Charles Leclerc paradox: now among the drivers gaining least
Charles Leclerc is particularly interesting in this comparison because he has long been regarded as one of Formula 1’s qualifying references, regularly finding something extra over a single lap and using that ability to disguise weaknesses in the car.
The current technical regulations have partly made qualifying more structured, but the fact that Charles Leclerc now struggles more to make the step between the two sessions points towards a broader limitation of the SF-26. On average, he finds just over three tenths between Q2 and Q3.
The season data shows the following averages:
- Kimi Antonelli: average Q2 position 2.615; average Q3 position 2.000; average Q2-Q3 improvement -0.534.
- George Russell: average Q2 position 5.000; average Q3 position 3.231; average Q2-Q3 improvement -0.584.
- Lando Norris: average Q2 position 4.615; average Q3 position 4.154; average Q2-Q3 improvement -0.460.
- Charles Leclerc: average Q2 position 3.308; average Q3 position 4.167; average Q2-Q3 improvement -0.325.
- Lewis Hamilton: average Q2 position 4.538; average Q3 position 4.231; average Q2-Q3 improvement -0.437.
- Max Verstappen: average Q2 position 4.800; average Q3 position 5.100; average Q2-Q3 improvement -0.386.
The comparison with Lewis Hamilton helps illustrate the same limitation from another angle. The seven-time world champion finds slightly more between Q2 and Q3, around four tenths, but he generally finishes the second qualifying segment between fourth and fifth. His average improvement in actual position when reaching Q3 is therefore only around three tenths of a place.
In practical terms, Lewis Hamilton effectively climbs only to around Charles Leclerc’s average level, suggesting the SF-26 is reaching a more general performance ceiling rather than one Ferrari driver simply failing to maximise the car. The wider season-long internal battle can also be followed through the Charles Leclerc vs Lewis Hamilton F1 head-to-head statistics.
Lando Norris, by contrast, is often capable of making a significant difference between Q2 and Q3 when he avoids mistakes. That strength helps McLaren achieve a larger average improvement than Ferrari during the decisive stages of qualifying and reinforces the competitive pressure facing the Maranello team.
Power-unit deficit creates a cascade effect for Ferrari
Frédéric Vasseur has often identified execution rather than a chronic weakness of the car as a decisive element in Ferrari’s qualifying difficulties, and there is some truth to that assessment. The two explanations are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Instead, execution problems and the underlying limitations of the package can reinforce one another.
During the opening rounds of the season, for example, Ferrari also struggled with software-related issues. There were weekends when the team found it difficult to identify the correct energy-management strategy. The challenge becomes even greater as qualifying progresses because higher cornering speeds mean less time and fewer opportunities to recharge the battery, making it harder to optimise energy deployment.
Mercedes has greater flexibility in this area. Ferrari’s shortage of outright horsepower therefore creates a cascade effect that reaches beyond straight-line performance alone. It can also influence set-up decisions because the Scuderia may not be able to run a higher level of aerodynamic load if the additional drag would further expose the engine deficit.
That helps explain why comparing Ferrari with Mercedes, McLaren and Red Bull requires looking beyond a single weakness. The broader competitive trends can be followed through the Ferrari vs F1 Rivals statistics.
SF-26 tyre window becomes especially narrow on low-energy circuits
The SF-26’s sensitivity to its tyres therefore appears in several different ways. The issue is not simply about switching the tyres on quickly enough. Ferrari must also achieve the correct balance between the front and rear axles, an area Pirelli considers particularly complex when teams are attempting to extract the final tenths of performance.
Lewis Hamilton has said there are “multiple factors” making Ferrari’s task difficult. On circuits with low degradation and limited energy being transmitted into the tyres, those different limitations combine to produce a particularly narrow operating window.
This is where the frustration becomes greater for Ferrari. During races, when some of the differences created by the power units become less pronounced and tyre management assumes greater importance, the SF-26 can finally reveal one of its strongest characteristics: its ability to treat the tyres gently over longer runs.
As a result, Ferrari can sometimes show qualities in race conditions that were hidden by a weaker qualifying position. That can happen even at circuits that should theoretically favour the car. The problem is that starting further back compromises the opportunity to exploit those strengths fully once the Grand Prix begins.
For that reason, Charles Leclerc’s comments about the progress being made by Ferrari’s rivals are less a simple expression of concern and more a warning about the direction of the competitive battle. The SF-26 still possesses useful race characteristics, but Ferrari needs its forthcoming developments to widen the operating window and allow more of that underlying potential to emerge when it matters most in qualifying.
Leave a Reply