Ferrari left the Hungarian Grand Prix with questions that may run considerably deeper than its final result. Strategy calls, driver errors and the management of key moments all proved costly, but focusing exclusively on those factors risks concealing the most significant concern to emerge at the Hungaroring: the Ferrari SF-26’s hard-tyre pace.
Once Ferrari fitted the hardest available compound, the SF-26 did not merely appear slower than McLaren. Its pace suggested a broader limitation, with Max Verstappen’s Red Bull and Kimi Antonelli’s Mercedes also able to produce more convincing performance. For a car that had looked extremely competitive on Friday, that transformation represents a potentially important warning.
The issue was among the subjects examined by Giovanni Messi and Davide Russo in the latest episode of A Ruote Ferme. Their analysis raised a crucial question for Ferrari: did the team’s overnight work improve one area of the car while narrowing the operating window that had made it so effective during Friday practice?
Ferrari’s SF-26 hard-tyre pace becomes the central concern
The weekend had begun in completely different circumstances. During Friday practice, the SF-26 appeared balanced, quick and capable of challenging at the front on a circuit that should, at least theoretically, have suited its characteristics.
Ferrari’s performance offered genuine encouragement. The car generated competitive lap times and appeared to give Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc a platform from which they could fight for a significant result. The underlying speed demonstrated during those sessions also reinforced the sense that the SF-26’s principal Hungary limitation was not a simple lack of downforce.
Something then changed.
During the night between Friday and Saturday, Ferrari used one of the curfew exemptions permitted under the Formula 1 regulations, allowing its mechanics to continue working on the car. That alone does not prove that the changes made the SF-26 worse, but the timing of its altered behaviour is noteworthy.
From the third practice session onwards, the Ferrari appeared more nervous, particularly at the rear, and showed a greater tendency to slide. At a circuit such as the Hungaroring, where traction, stability and tyre-temperature control are fundamental, losing confidence in the rear axle can quickly translate into higher degradation and reduced performance.
The question is therefore whether Ferrari pursued an improvement to its set-up but inadvertently reduced the SF-26’s effective operating window.
Ferrari’s Hungarian GP problem was not only strategy
Ferrari’s race management inevitably attracted much of the criticism after Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton finished fourth and fifth in the final Hungarian Grand Prix classification.
The decision to stop Lewis Hamilton during the Virtual Safety Car period generated particular debate. The British driver had inherited second place and held track position over Max Verstappen, but Ferrari elected to bring him into the pits, surrendering that position on the circuit.
It is consequently easy to attribute the outcome to strategy. However, that interpretation risks being incomplete. A strategic choice can only become effective when the car is capable of exploiting the tyres fitted to it, and this is where Ferrari’s most worrying Hungarian GP finding emerged.
On the hard compound, the SF-26 did not demonstrate the pace required to compete consistently at the very front. McLaren was faster, Max Verstappen remained competitive in the Red Bull and Kimi Antonelli produced an extremely convincing combination of speed and tyre management for Mercedes.
The impression created during the race was that Ferrari may even have been the fourth-fastest of the leading teams on the hard tyre. That is the real alarm behind a weekend already defined by missed opportunities and late Hungaroring drama.
Why a sliding Ferrari can compromise its tyres
The behaviour seen in Hungary could be consistent with a car struggling to keep its tyres within the correct operating window. If the rear slides excessively, the tyre experiences greater surface and thermal stress. The driver must also make more corrections and cannot exploit the available traction fully when accelerating out of slower corners.
However, the opposite problem can also occur. A harder compound requires sufficient energy to reach and remain within its optimum temperature range. If a car cannot transfer that energy into the tyre effectively, the compound may fail to provide the expected grip.
Ferrari’s internal data would be required to determine with certainty which phenomenon caused the greatest loss. The stopwatch nevertheless exposed the consequence: the SF-26 could not produce the same level of relative performance on hard tyres that it had demonstrated during other phases of the weekend.
The contrast with McLaren was particularly significant given how successfully Ferrari’s rival extracted performance from its package. McLaren’s progress in Budapest was also connected to a development programme that delivered a clear Hungarian GP breakthrough.
Why the Hungaroring should have suited Ferrari
The circuit makes Ferrari’s hard-tyre weakness even more important. Budapest was not expected to rank among the most problematic venues for this generation of Ferrari car. The Hungaroring places less emphasis on maximum speed and energy management than much faster circuits such as Spa-Francorchamps.
It was therefore one of the rounds at which Ferrari should have maximised its points. Instead, when the race reached its decisive stage, the SF-26 fell behind not only McLaren but also the levels of performance produced by Red Bull and Mercedes.
That changes the interpretation of Ferrari’s weekend. A questionable strategy can explain why a driver surrendered track position, but it does not fully explain why the car subsequently lacked the pace required to recover it.
Ferrari must determine what changed after Friday
After a race of this nature, the temptation is to search for one person or decision to blame. Ferrari’s strategy
Leave a Reply