Just over a month ago, Ferrari appeared to be firmly in the fight for the 2026 Formula 1 Constructors’ Championship. The 73-point deficit to Mercedes before the Hungarian Grand Prix reflected an excellent job across the opening ten races, but something has been missing precisely at the events that were expected to push the Ferrari SF-26 into a closer battle with Mercedes. The emerging question is whether Ferrari’s high-downforce strength is being undermined by a more decisive limitation: the power unit’s ability to recover and deploy electrical energy.
Recent weeks have underlined how difficult it has become, even for the teams themselves, to predict the competitive order before a race weekend. Formula 1’s new technical era has changed the relative importance of several performance factors compared with the previous eight or nine years. Budapest and, above all, Zandvoort appeared on paper to be particularly fertile ground for the SF-26: plenty of corners and relatively few long straights should have played to Ferrari’s strengths. Instead, the Scuderia left those opportunities badly bruised and without a single podium.
Mercedes’ advantage has consequently grown from 73 to 87 points at circuits where Toto Wolff’s team was expected to be on the defensive. That leaves an increasingly important question ahead of the Italian Grand Prix: how much of Ferrari’s championship response now rests on the ADUO-2 power unit development prepared for Monza?
Ferrari SF-26 energy recovery limits its high-downforce advantage
A car as strong through the corners as the SF-26 would normally be expected to produce better results at high-downforce circuits. Yet Monaco, Budapest and Zandvoort — the three most technical tracks on the calendar — have produced only one podium between them. Qualifying figures in particular paint a clear picture: after years in which engine performance had largely converged, the power unit and electrical-energy management have once again become crucial differentiators in Formula 1.
Comparing Ferrari’s qualifying performance with the other leading teams reveals only a very small difference between circuits where the permitted energy recovery is less than or equal to 7 MJ and those where more than 7 MJ can be recovered over a qualifying lap, which can broadly be categorised as higher-downforce circuits.
Tracks that allow greater energy recovery have often created difficulties for the Ferrari power unit, especially towards the end of longer full-throttle sections, as was evident at Zandvoort. High-recovery circuits are still better overall for Ferrari in qualifying, but not by enough to meet the higher expectations created by the aerodynamic and chassis characteristics of the SF-26.
That trend helps explain why Ferrari gains less than a tenth of a second on Mercedes at high-downforce, high-recovery circuits compared with lower-downforce venues, where the greater number of extended full-throttle sections allows the W17 to exploit its strongest characteristics.
The season-long race-pace figures are even more striking. They show Ferrari closer to the benchmark car at circuits where the permitted level of energy recovery is lower. That suggests the limitations of the power unit are preventing the SF-26 from extracting the advantage its superior chassis and aerodynamic performance should theoretically provide at the circuits best suited to those qualities.
The significance of that balance has become increasingly important as Ferrari continues its technical development of the SF-26, because adding aerodynamic performance alone cannot fully compensate if electrical-energy deployment becomes the limiting factor over a qualifying lap.
Ferrari loses ground to McLaren as permitted energy recovery increases
A further indication emerges from Ferrari’s comparison with McLaren. The loss of performance between low-recovery circuits — where the figure is less than or equal to 7 MJ per lap — and high-recovery venues approaches one and a half tenths of a second over a qualifying lap. In race conditions, the difference compared with McLaren exceeds two tenths.
The new Formula 1 regulations are therefore demonstrating something that had already been predicted during the winter: the quality of a power unit can no longer be judged by outright horsepower alone. What matters increasingly is the amount of electrical energy drivers can make available and deploy during each lap.
A higher permitted recovery limit gives a significant advantage to power units capable of replenishing the battery effectively during clipping and superclipping phases. This is where an engine advantage can become particularly influential. The issue is not simply how much power the internal combustion engine produces, but how successfully the complete hybrid system can recover, store and redeploy energy at the points around the lap where it is most valuable.
That is why Ferrari’s latest engine programme has taken on such importance. The Scuderia has been working not only on outright power but also on the way energy is managed, while the latest Ferrari power unit development for Monza has become a major part of the attempt to reduce the deficit to its rivals.
Ferrari’s Zandvoort race pace offered encouragement
The Dutch Grand Prix nevertheless provided encouraging signs in race conditions, reinforcing what had already emerged during Saturday morning’s Sprint. Charles Leclerc’s Ferrari had race pace comparable to Lando Norris’ McLaren, but unfavourable track position ultimately produced a very different outcome.
After making a perfect initial start, Charles Leclerc found himself on the wrong side of Turn 1 at the second attempt and surrendered the position to Oscar Piastri. The Monegasque did not manage to pass the Australian until lap 33, losing several seconds behind the number 81 McLaren and, with them, the opportunity to recover George Russell’s Mercedes during the second stint.
The underlying speed of the SF-26 was nevertheless significant, with subsequent Zandvoort race-pace analysis showing how close Ferrari was to McLaren when the cars were able to run in representative conditions.
Charles Leclerc’s Piastri pass reveals a key feature of 2026 F1
Charles Leclerc’s overtake also illustrated one of the distinctive strategic elements of the new Formula 1 regulations. To have more electrical energy available on the main straight, the Ferrari driver deliberately saved energy before Turn 7 so that he could deploy more of it towards the chicane and through the final part of the straight than Oscar Piastri.
That sequence demonstrated just how important electrical-energy management has become during wheel-to-wheel racing. Drivers are not simply managing battery deployment across an entire lap; they can alter where energy is saved and released to create an overtaking opportunity several corners later.
On the other side of the Ferrari garage, Lewis Hamilton also produced a strong race, although his pace was lower than that of his team-mate. The seven-time world champion was unable to maximise what should have been the more favourable strategy.
The crossover between the two Ferrari drivers during the second stint cost both Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton several seconds of race time and did neither driver any favours in the pursuit of third place. Even a podium, however, would not have completely erased the disappointment of an underwhelming weekend.
In Hungary, Ferrari had suffered from greater stress on the rear axle during Sunday’s race, as had been expected. Zandvoort was different: the race itself should have provided a better opportunity to exploit the car’s strengths, particularly after the latest SF-26 floor upgrade delivered encouraging race-pace gains.
Qualifying remains Ferrari’s biggest obstacle
Overall, however, the performance Ferrari lost in qualifying — even compared with the previous round in Hungary — was the factor that hurt the team most during the Dutch weekend. The deficit was approximately two tenths relative to McLaren and Mercedes.
Between Q2 and Q3, Charles Leclerc lost around one tenth of a second of straight-line performance, while Lewis Hamilton lost less than half that amount. At the same time, the Mercedes-powered cars raised their level.
It is important to note that the sequence of corners at Zandvoort was not as ideally suited to Ferrari as Budapest. At medium and high speeds, the SF-26’s advantage — particularly relative to McLaren — becomes smaller than it is at slower circuits. That helps explain why Ferrari’s aerodynamic strengths alone were never likely to produce the same potential advantage in the Netherlands as they might have at the Hungaroring.
Even so, the decisive factor in Dutch Grand Prix qualifying was undoubtedly Ferrari’s difficulty in reaching the 7.5 MJ of energy recovery permitted by the FIA. The main loss in both qualifying sessions appeared on the final straight, where the SF-26 ran out of usable electrical energy while its rivals continued to pull away.
That weakness was particularly costly because qualifying position shaped the entire race. Even though Ferrari’s underlying Sunday pace was competitive at Zandvoort, starting from the third row left Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton trapped behind cars they might otherwise have been able to challenge directly.
Race pace is not enough when Ferrari starts from the third row
The conclusion from Zandvoort is therefore both encouraging and frustrating. Ferrari showed enough race pace to suggest that the SF-26’s recent development has worked, but in the current Formula 1 environment it remains extremely difficult to win races when starting from the third row.
Track position still dictates strategy, tyre management and the amount of time a driver must spend in traffic. Charles Leclerc’s race demonstrated the problem clearly: even when the Ferrari had sufficient pace to run with the leaders, the time lost behind Oscar Piastri effectively removed the opportunity to attack George Russell during the next phase of the Grand Prix.
That makes Saturday performance increasingly important. Ferrari can have a car capable of matching McLaren over a stint, but if electrical-energy limitations cost two tenths in qualifying, much of that Sunday potential can already be compromised before the race begins.
Monza FIA energy figure could be crucial for Ferrari and ADUO-2
Attention now turns to the Italian Grand Prix, where an important indication will arrive earlier than usual. The FIA is expected to publish a document entitled “Italian Grand Prix – Power Unit Information”, which will reveal how many megajoules of energy recovery will be permitted over a qualifying lap at Monza.
That figure could become particularly significant for Ferrari given the pattern seen so far this season. The Scuderia is already preparing a circuit-specific technical package, with the SF-26 Monza configuration combining aerodynamic changes with the ADUO-2 programme.
Monza will naturally present a very different challenge from Zandvoort. Ferrari will need a car that is extremely competitive through the corners while limiting the performance deficit created by the power units of Mercedes, McLaren and Red Bull. Aerodynamic efficiency will therefore remain essential, but the evidence from the opening part of the season suggests that the engine battle can no longer be reduced to outright horsepower.
For Ferrari, the ability to harvest and deploy electrical energy may be every bit as important. If the SF-26 cannot fully exploit the energy-recovery allowance available on a given circuit, even its strongest aerodynamic characteristics risk being neutralised. That is why the relationship between Ferrari’s Monza aero package and its power unit development could prove decisive at the Italian Grand Prix.
After Hungary and Zandvoort increased Mercedes’ Constructors’ Championship advantage from 73 to 87 points, Ferrari can no longer rely simply on reaching circuits that appear favourable on paper. In the new Formula 1 era, the circuits with more corners and higher downforce requirements do not automatically deliver the expected advantage if the SF-26 cannot match its rivals in electrical-energy recovery and deployment. The next test at Monza should offer another important indication of whether ADUO-2 can begin to change that equation.
Leave a Reply