Ferrari has now gone four consecutive Grands Prix without a podium, a sequence that has placed several areas of the SF-26 project under increasing scrutiny. The Maranello team’s most recent top-three finish remains Charles Leclerc’s second place at the Belgian Grand Prix in mid-July, with aerodynamic development, qualifying performance, power-unit output and race-weekend execution all contributing to the subsequent decline.
Since Belgium, Ferrari has had to contend with McLaren’s renewed competitiveness and Mercedes’ consistently strong form while also paying the price for its own shortcomings. Aerodynamic development has slowed, the engine continues to suffer from a power deficit and trackside management has not been free from mistakes. Taken together, those issues inevitably raise questions over the direction of the SF-26 project.
McLaren has moved ahead of Ferrari
Ferrari’s difficult spell effectively began at the Hungarian Grand Prix. In Budapest, the team endured an extremely poor execution of the weekend, making several mistakes in both qualifying and the race. Monza was a different case, with the unusual characteristics of the circuit magnifying the SF-26’s lack of straight-line speed.
The Italian Grand Prix also ended with Charles Leclerc crashing at the Parabolica, while Madrid produced one of Ferrari’s relatively rare reliability-related retirements of the season. Lewis Hamilton was forced out by a brake-by-wire failure, an issue Ferrari subsequently investigated in detail after his Madrid Grand Prix retirement.
Beyond those individual circumstances, the second half of the summer also marked a clear performance step forward for McLaren. The MCL40 had been waiting for upgrades since the Spanish Grand Prix, and the developments introduced around Budapest and Zandvoort allowed the papaya car to make a significant leap. Ferrari, however, has also remained behind Mercedes, despite the Brackley team having gone without new developments since the Canadian Grand Prix.
A new floor arrived for the SF-26 at Zandvoort, increasing downforce and widening the car’s operating window. Yet in a season in which the current cars remain aerodynamically immature and the development curve has been particularly steep, Ferrari’s latest package has not produced the same return as some of its earlier updates.
The concern is that, rather than closing the gap to Mercedes by the end of the year, Ferrari could see it grow further. Mercedes is preparing a substantial package of updates for the next triple-header, while questions continue over how effectively the Scuderia can develop the SF-26. Ferrari has nevertheless explained why continued work on the current car can also contribute to its 2027 Formula 1 project.
Ferrari’s SF-26 qualifying problems are limiting its race potential
Ferrari’s disappointing results also stem from a car that is more competitive in race conditions than it is over a single qualifying lap. The problem is that the team does not always have the tools needed to exploit that Sunday strength.
Strong race pace becomes particularly valuable at circuits where overtaking is relatively achievable. Long straights can allow an attacking driver to manage electrical energy differently from the car ahead and create opportunities to pass. Yet those same sections also expose the power deficit of Ferrari’s power unit, leaving the SF-26 vulnerable precisely where overtaking should theoretically become easier.
The opposite problem appears on more technical circuits. When the track is more twisty, the engine deficit matters less, but overtaking also becomes more difficult. Qualifying position therefore takes on greater importance, placing additional pressure on an area in which Ferrari has repeatedly struggled.
That pattern was evident in Budapest, Zandvoort and Madrid, where Ferrari lacked the same impact on Saturday that it could produce over race distance. It is a characteristic that has persisted since 2024. The difference between the SF-26’s qualifying and race behaviour was also visible during the Spanish Grand Prix weekend in Madrid.
It is now up to Frédéric Vasseur and Loïc Serra to determine how much of the weakness comes from failing to optimise the set-up for a single flying lap and how much is related to difficulties bringing the tyres into the correct operating condition on the preparation lap. Ferrari’s qualifying performance can also be examined through the F1 Qualifying Pace & Sector Comparison, which provides additional context on sector performance and qualifying progression.
However, the limitations are not purely operational. Some appear to be inherent in the design itself, including the power unit’s performance over a single lap and the basic concept of the SF-26.
SF-26 concept appears better suited to race conditions
The underlying SF-26 philosophy appears to have been designed to deliver its best performance over longer distances. Although ride height is less extreme a factor than during the previous ground-effect era, the current generation of Formula 1 cars is still sensitive to the height at which the floor operates.
As a result, each car can behave differently across the various phases of a Grand Prix weekend depending on how its aerodynamic platform has been optimised. A configuration that works particularly well with a full fuel load may not necessarily deliver the same relative performance when the car is light and operating at its maximum potential in qualifying.
Madrid offered another example of how compromises within the SF-26 can become costly, with Ferrari’s stiff set-up exposing a difficult balance at Madring.
Ferrari engine deficit remains a major SF-26 weakness
Of Ferrari’s recent races, Monza was the most difficult from a power-unit perspective. The SF-26 suffered from insufficient straight-line speed, partly because of greater aerodynamic drag compared with Mercedes, but above all because of the performance deficit of Ferrari’s power unit.
With the current Formula 1 engines, a lack of horsepower from the internal combustion engine also reduces the flexibility available in electrical-energy management. If the combustion engine provides less thrust on corner exit, Ferrari has to rely more heavily on the electric motor during the initial acceleration phase to compensate.
That places greater demand on the battery early in the straight. Energy can therefore be depleted sooner, leaving less available later in the acceleration zone when it could otherwise contribute to a higher terminal speed.
At Monza, Charles Leclerc observed that the GPS traces appeared to show Mercedes being able to deploy electrical power on every straight, whereas Ferrari was forced to choose the acceleration zones in which it could use that energy. The resulting straight-line differences can be explored further through the F1 Top Speed Comparison.
ADUO-2 power unit has not erased Ferrari’s deficit
The ADUO-2 power unit specification that made its debut in Brianza was not enough to close the gap to Mercedes-powered cars. Frédéric Vasseur has pointed out that engine development is inherently slower than aerodynamic development because of the long manufacturing lead times involved, including the need to produce units for customer teams.
That does not alter the fact that Ferrari has carried a performance deficit since the beginning of the season. It remains unclear how much of that gap should be attributed to inefficient combustion and how much derives from a broader power-unit concept that has not delivered the expected benefits.
Engine performance has also been affected by Ferrari’s decision to sacrifice some cooling capacity for aerodynamic purposes and to install a smaller turbocharger in an attempt to improve response at lower speeds. That decision was also influenced by a starting procedure that the FIA subsequently changed before the beginning of the season.
Those compromises became especially visible at circuits such as Monza, where sustained acceleration and electrical-energy deployment play a major role in overall lap time. They could remain relevant at upcoming high-speed venues, with Ferrari already facing a challenging technical outlook for Baku.
Four podium-free races leave Ferrari facing a missed opportunity
Overall, four consecutive races without a podium have inevitably damaged Ferrari’s hopes of challenging for the Constructors’ Championship. There is also a sense of a missed opportunity, particularly because Ferrari is the only leading team whose two drivers are so closely matched in performance.
Lewis Hamilton’s retirement in Madrid was also one of the few technical failures in what has otherwise been a very strong season from a reliability perspective. That makes the recent sequence especially frustrating: rather than being dominated by repeated mechanical failures, Ferrari’s problems have come from a combination of performance limitations, execution errors and the characteristics of the SF-26 itself.
For Maranello, attention now turns to the remaining races. More important than simply defending second place in the Constructors’ Championship from an increasingly competitive McLaren will be finding solutions to the problems that have prevented the SF-26 from converting its potential into stronger results.
Leave a Reply