Ferrari produced encouraging early signs during FP1 at the new Madring circuit, but the first detailed comparison with Mercedes also revealed an important shift across the lap. Charles Leclerc built an advantage of almost four tenths over George Russell by the exit of the Monumental, only for Mercedes to recover strongly through the second half of the lap as energy deployment, tyre behaviour and slow-corner performance emerged as the first major technical questions of the Spanish Grand Prix weekend.
The opening practice session in Madrid was inevitably dominated by learning. With Formula 1 competing on the new circuit for the first time, drivers and engineers were still discovering the limits of a layout combining fast sections, slow corners, elevation changes and two particularly distinctive areas in the Monumental and the Snake. Those contrasting demands appear to require very different characteristics from the cars, which is one reason Ferrari arrived in Madrid with reason to expect the SF-26 to suit Madring better than Monza.
Ferrari aggressive with energy deployment early in the Madrid FP1 lap
One of the clearest differences in the FP1 data concerned energy management. Ferrari, like Audi, adopted a particularly aggressive strategy during the opening part of the lap, using a significant amount of electrical energy all the way to Turn 5. Mercedes followed a much more conservative approach through the same section.
This was not something seen only on a single qualifying-style lap. The same general behaviour appeared repeatedly throughout the session, suggesting that the two teams were working with clearly different deployment philosophies during FP1 rather than the contrast being the result of one isolated run.
The SF-26 also appeared competitive through the Monumental. Charles Leclerc made only a small lift on entry, as the other drivers did, before returning to the accelerator and taking practically the entire long corner flat while continuing to accelerate. The behaviour may appear counterintuitive, but similar patterns could be seen across much of the field and underline just how complex that section is both for the driver and for the car.
During the early stages of the session, Mercedes was even beginning to flatten its acceleration from around the middle of the Monumental onwards in order to save energy, apparently while running a conservative deployment map. Through both the entry and the body of the corner, drivers and engineers were therefore searching for the best compromise between sacrificing entry speed, conserving electrical energy and choosing the most effective racing line.
Those demands are part of the broader technical challenge Ferrari faces at the new venue, where its Madrid aerodynamic configuration has already been the subject of extensive evaluation.
Mercedes turns the comparison around after the Monumental
Ferrari’s aggressive first half of the lap initially paid off. By the exit of the Monumental, Charles Leclerc had built an advantage of almost four tenths over George Russell. From that point onwards, however, the comparison changed dramatically.
At Turn 15, George Russell carried around 9 km/h more speed through the corner, while Ferrari already appeared to be recovering electrical energy. Mercedes was also particularly effective through the Snake, where the speed difference compared with Charles Leclerc’s SF-26 was in the region of 7 to 10 km/h.
The heaviest time loss then arrived through the slow and twisting final section, particularly under traction. Charles Leclerc surrendered more than half a second overall in the third sector, allowing Mercedes to overturn the advantage Ferrari had accumulated earlier in the lap.
The data suggested that Mercedes had more usable energy available during the closing part of the lap. There may also have been a setup difference at work. The Mercedes appeared to be running a slightly softer configuration, helping it perform better in the slower sections but forcing its drivers to reduce speed somewhat during the second half of the Monumental to prevent the compression from pushing the car too low towards the track surface.
Finding the right compromise between those different sections will be crucial because Madring does not reward only one characteristic. The braking and energy-recovery demands also differ significantly around the lap, making Ferrari’s management of braking and recovered energy in Madrid another important area to monitor as the weekend develops.
Lewis Hamilton’s ideal lap suggests Ferrari had more pace available
The internal Ferrari comparison provided another interesting indication. Charles Leclerc finished ahead of Lewis Hamilton in the official FP1 classification, but the ideal-lap data told a different story.
Combining each driver’s best sectors, Lewis Hamilton would have been more than two tenths faster than Charles Leclerc. That theoretical lap would also have placed the seven-time world champion ahead of Andrea Kimi Antonelli, who finished the session in second position.
Traffic was an important factor in the difference between Lewis Hamilton’s potential and his final position. The British driver encountered significant traffic during the session and was effectively unable to complete a fully clean lap, meaning the classification did not necessarily represent the maximum performance available from his Ferrari.
Charles Leclerc drops away from Lewis Hamilton late in the lap
There is another detail that will be particularly important to follow during FP2. On the Soft tyre, Charles Leclerc was clearly stronger than Lewis Hamilton through the first half of the lap. From the exit of the Monumental onwards, however, the situation reversed, with the British driver showing significantly more performance, including during the acceleration phases.
At this stage, there are at least two possible explanations. Charles Leclerc’s Soft tyre may have become too hot, causing it to lose performance during the second half of the lap. Alternatively, the difference may have been related to the amount of electrical energy available to each car, potentially also influenced by the different ADUO specifications fitted to the two Ferraris.
That second possibility is particularly interesting given the different power-unit situations surrounding the two cars in Madrid, with Charles Leclerc’s ADUO2 unit not being used at the Madrid weekend. At this stage, however, it is too early to determine whether tyre temperature, energy availability or a combination of factors caused the late-lap performance difference.
Either explanation would be significant in terms of qualifying, because the ability to maintain tyre performance and electrical deployment through the full lap could determine how much of the SF-26’s potential Ferrari can actually extract when the cars are pushed to the limit.
FP2 should provide clearer answers for Ferrari and Mercedes
The first practice session therefore produced more questions than definitive conclusions, as expected on a completely new circuit. Ferrari appeared strong during the opening half of the lap and competitive through one of Madring’s most demanding sections, while Mercedes became increasingly effective as the lap progressed and held a notable advantage through the slow final sector.
The second practice session should begin to provide a clearer picture. With more rubber on the track and teams moving towards more representative programmes, Ferrari will have an opportunity to determine whether the late-lap drop-off was primarily related to tyre behaviour, energy deployment or setup.
For now, the SF-26 has shown genuine potential at Madring, but extracting that performance consistently across an entire lap remains the central challenge. The next runs should reveal whether Ferrari can preserve its strength through the opening sections without paying such a heavy price after the Monumental. Further developments throughout the weekend will also provide a clearer picture of the car’s progress within Ferrari’s wider technical development analysis.
Leave a Reply