The Ferrari SF-26 battery and its management of electrical energy may represent a more important part of the car’s performance deficit than the combustion engine alone. The 2026 Italian Grand Prix highlighted an impressive advantage for Mercedes in energy management, raising a crucial question for Ferrari after a difficult weekend at Monza.
On a circuit where power-unit performance and aerodynamic efficiency are fundamental, Mercedes once again demonstrated an ability to exploit its package that, at least on this type of track, appeared superior to Ferrari’s. The difference was particularly visible in the way the W17 recovered, stored and deployed electrical energy, an increasingly decisive element under the 2026 Formula 1 regulations.
Kimi Antonelli ultimately took victory after an extraordinary recovery from 19th on the grid to first place. It was an especially difficult achievement at Monza, where starting so far back would normally severely compromise a driver’s race. Instead, Kimi Antonelli worked his way through the field by combining pace, strategy and a Mercedes power unit that proved extremely effective in managing its available energy. The FIA confirmed the Italian driver’s victory ahead of George Russell and Max Verstappen.
Mercedes’ extra weapon at Monza: electrical energy
The most interesting technical point to emerge from Monza does not necessarily concern combustion-engine power alone. Under the 2026 regulations, the electrical side of the power unit has taken on a much greater role than in the past, making the ability to recover, store and subsequently deploy energy enormously important.
Mercedes appears to hold a particularly noticeable advantage in this area. During the race, Kimi Antonelli was repeatedly able to use the available electrical energy to attack and overtake his rivals. The W17 gave the impression of having extremely effective electrical deployment at decisive moments, allowing the car to convert energy stored in the battery into immediately usable performance.
For that reason, the comparison can no longer simply be reduced to how many more or fewer horsepower one engine has. The Ferrari SF-26 power unit has to be considered as a complete system: the combustion engine, battery, energy recovery, electronic management and the way electrical power is deployed around the lap.
That wider picture may explain at least part of the gap seen at Monza. Recent Ferrari ADUO2 data from the Italian Grand Prix also underlined how combustion performance, energy deployment and battery management all contributed to the final level of competitiveness.
Ferrari endured a weekend below expectations
For Ferrari, the Italian Grand Prix was a much more difficult event.
Charles Leclerc was forced to retire following an accident in the early stages of the race, while Lewis Hamilton finished sixth. The official result therefore confirmed a particularly disappointing day for the Scuderia, especially given the importance of Monza to the Maranello team.
At certain points Lewis Hamilton was able to stay close to his rivals and complete several overtaking moves. The problem was turning those temporary opportunities into consistent race performance. Ferrari appeared capable of closing the gap, but it did not always seem to have enough energy available to complete an attack and, crucially, to establish a margin once a position had been gained.
Is Ferrari’s real problem the combustion engine?
Several possible explanations for Ferrari’s deficit have been discussed during the season. One concerns the turbocharger. Ferrari’s turbo has attracted attention because of its dimensions and its ability to operate effectively at high engine speeds.
An updated solution was introduced at Monza, retaining comparable dimensions but featuring a different impeller design. Ferrari’s work on the ADUO-2 turbo and compressor blades was therefore another important element of its attempt to improve power-unit performance for one of the most demanding circuits of the season.
Another area concerns the cooling system. Reducing radiator mass can potentially deliver aerodynamic advantages, but inevitably makes it more complicated to keep temperatures and reliability within the correct operating windows.
There is then a third question that is much harder to evaluate from outside the team: the choice of materials and operating temperatures used in the cylinder head and combustion engine. All of these elements can influence performance, but it would be wrong to identify one single definitive cause without access to the manufacturers’ internal data.
Could the Ferrari SF-26 battery be the real weakness?
This leads to perhaps the most interesting possibility. Ferrari’s problem may not be concentrated primarily in the internal combustion engine at all, but instead on the electrical side of the power unit.
The 2026 regulations have radically changed the balance between thermal and electrical power. With electrical energy playing a much larger role, the battery and the ability to manage energy effectively become strategic performance factors.
Naturally, the materials used by the different manufacturers are not publicly known, nor is it possible to determine precisely how their respective batteries are designed internally. These are highly sensitive areas of development and effectively represent some of Formula 1’s most closely guarded technological secrets.
What happens on track, however, can provide clues. At Monza, Mercedes appeared capable of exploiting electrical energy with greater consistency and effectiveness. Kimi Antonelli’s recovery through the field, culminating in the decisive move on George Russell, is particularly interesting from this perspective.
Strategy and tyre management played a fundamental role, but Mercedes’ ability to produce performance at decisive moments was clearly visible. For Ferrari, this adds another dimension to the technical analysis of the SF-26: improving combustion performance alone may not be sufficient if the overall efficiency of energy storage and deployment remains behind Mercedes.
Could Ferrari be paying for a year of lost development?
There is another, much broader interpretation, although it necessarily remains hypothetical. Ferrari may have entered the new power-unit regulations with a shorter or more complicated preparation period than some of its rivals.
When the 2026 regulations were established, manufacturers faced a major technical revolution. Mercedes already possessed extensive experience with electrified power units and had also developed specific expertise through its Formula E programme.
Ferrari, by contrast, had emerged from several extremely complicated years. The 2020 season represented one of the most difficult periods in the Scuderia’s recent history, while by 2021 the engine department was already working on the power unit required for the 2022 regulations.
In other words, a significant proportion of Ferrari’s technical and design resources had to be allocated to the project that would accompany Formula 1 into the ground-effect generation. It is therefore plausible that Ferrari had to divide resources, personnel and expertise between several programmes at the same time.
If that interpretation is correct, the current problem would not have begun in 2026. Instead, it could be the result of a cascade of decisions and technological delays accumulated over previous years.
Why small energy gaps become major problems in 2026 F1
In Formula 1, a small technical deficit does not necessarily remain small. At a circuit such as Monza, with long straights and repeated heavy braking zones, even a few percentage points of difference in energy efficiency can translate into valuable tenths of a second around the lap.
If Ferrari has a slightly less efficient system when deploying electrical energy, the disadvantage can appear during acceleration, on the exits of the chicanes and, above all, when attempting overtakes.
The result can be a car capable of staying close to a rival without being able to complete the attack. Even if the Ferrari gets ahead, it may then struggle to immediately establish the same margin that a more effective energy-deployment system could provide.
Monza inevitably magnifies this type of weakness. Ferrari had already attempted to adapt the SF-26 to the circuit through changes including its revised Monza FTM configuration, aimed at reducing drag and improving efficiency, but the Italian Grand Prix showed that aerodynamic efficiency was only one part of the overall performance equation.
What can Ferrari do to reduce the gap?
The first response will have to come through technical development.
Ferrari needs increasingly close collaboration with Shell on fuels and lubricants because, with the new generation of power units, fuel chemistry can itself become an important factor in achieving efficiency and performance.
The second major resource is time. Every kilometre completed by the SF-26 generates an enormous amount of data. Each race gives Ferrari’s engineers another opportunity to understand where the power unit performs well, where it loses efficiency and, above all, where Mercedes is managing to extract something more.
The experience accumulated throughout 2026 can therefore be converted into future development. Ferrari also does not appear willing to abandon its own design philosophy. The objective will not necessarily be to copy Mercedes, but rather to understand how to maximise the characteristics of Ferrari’s own power unit.
The next circuits can reveal whether Monza exaggerated Ferrari’s weakness
Monza may have been one of the worst possible circuits for exposing Ferrari’s limitations. That is precisely why the next phase of the season will be so important.
The SF-26’s behaviour at tracks requiring more aerodynamic downforce, featuring slower corners and producing a different pattern of energy recovery should provide a much more complete answer. The remaining rounds of the 2026 Formula 1 season will therefore offer Ferrari a series of very different technical tests.
If Ferrari’s deficit decreases significantly at circuits with different characteristics, Monza could be viewed primarily as a venue particularly well suited to Mercedes. If the same weakness appears again on fundamentally different layouts, however, it will become increasingly difficult to explain the gap purely through circuit characteristics.
One point is already clear: the Italian Grand Prix placed Formula 1’s real 2026 technological battle under the spotlight. That battle is not being fought with the combustion engine alone. Increasingly, it is being fought through energy.
Kimi Antonelli and Mercedes demonstrated at Monza just how effectively that energy can be exploited. Ferrari now needs to understand how to close what may appear to be a small gap on paper, but which can become an extremely costly disadvantage once the cars reach the circuit.
Leave a Reply