Ferrari’s management of the SF-26’s Belgian Grand Prix race pace proved decisive at Spa-Francorchamps, where the team continually adapted its settings to challenge Mercedes despite damage, understeer and a clear straight-line disadvantage. Lewis Hamilton had to manage a heavily compromised car following his opening-lap contact with George Russell, while Charles Leclerc used brake-shape, differential and engine-braking adjustments to remain in contention with Andrea Kimi Antonelli.
Andrea Kimi Antonelli ultimately converted Mercedes’ performance advantage into victory, but Ferrari’s response throughout the race demonstrated how much more effectively the team can now optimise a difficult situation. As highlighted by the overall Ferrari Belgian Grand Prix review, Charles Leclerc finished second while Lewis Hamilton recovered to fourth despite carrying damage and serving a five-second penalty.
How Ferrari maximised the SF-26’s Belgian GP race pace
During the opening stint, Ferrari attempted to impose its own rhythm, encouraged by the promising potential the SF-26 had shown during Friday practice. Fred Vasseur had already emphasised that the car was expected to perform more competitively in race conditions than in qualifying, although Ferrari’s one-lap performance had also exceeded its initial expectations.
From the opening laps, however, Lewis Hamilton immediately complained about a lack of power at the end of the straights. The British driver initially focused his radio messages on the delivery of electrical energy, but the problem was also closely connected to the aerodynamic damage sustained in his first-lap collision with George Russell.
Lewis Hamilton manages a heavily damaged Ferrari SF-26
Lewis Hamilton’s car had lost several points of downforce and aerodynamic efficiency because of the contact. The entire floor-board element was missing from the number 44 Ferrari, namely the vertical aerodynamic panel positioned alongside the cockpit area. Its absence created a predictable loss of load and efficiency, while also compromising the car’s overall drag characteristics.
In the second half of the stint, Lewis Hamilton also reported insufficient rotation while running on Pirelli’s Hard compound. This dynamic behaviour was partly encouraged by the characteristics of the Belgian circuit, making it essential to preserve the front axle as effectively as possible. Lewis Hamilton handled that task extremely well, supported by careful guidance from the Ferrari pit wall.
The situation became more difficult after Ferrari was unable to complete a planned front-wing adjustment during the pit stop. That missed change left Lewis Hamilton with an unsuitable aerodynamic balance and contributed to the persistent understeer he experienced during the second stint, as explained in the analysis of how Ferrari’s missed front-wing adjustment affected Hamilton’s race pace.
Charles Leclerc did not initially suffer from the same level of understeer. Nevertheless, the Ferrari pit wall instructed him to reduce the brake-shape setting by one step. The objective was to alter the way the braking force was delivered and help control the small wheel lock-ups Charles Leclerc was experiencing under braking and reporting over the radio.
Charles Leclerc’s settings during the final battle with Antonelli
The radio communications from the closing laps provide a detailed picture of how Charles Leclerc and Ferrari attempted to defend against Andrea Kimi Antonelli. The Ferrari had competitive pace, but it was equally clear that Mercedes possessed an advantage of approximately one tenth of a second per lap.
While Andrea Kimi Antonelli was closing on the number 16 Ferrari, Charles Leclerc complained about damaging wheelspin and sliding under acceleration. That behaviour contrasted sharply with the trend seen during the rest of the weekend, when traction had not represented one of Ferrari’s most obvious weaknesses.
To reduce the problem, Ferrari instructed Charles Leclerc to adjust the differential locking through the middle of the corner. By calling for “minus one”, the engineers attempted to help the SF-26 rotate more effectively and reduce the understeer being reported by the Monegasque driver.
Mercedes, meanwhile, preferred to leave Andrea Kimi Antonelli largely undisturbed so that the championship leader could maintain maximum concentration. His only instruction was that he could move the brake balance farther forwards if required.
As Toto Wolff underlined after the race, Andrea Kimi Antonelli managed the pursuit with considerable maturity. He reduced the gap one tenth at a time while avoiding putting excessive energy into the tyres, which could have pushed them outside their correct working range. Mercedes later also acknowledged that its power-unit problem affected every Mercedes engine at Spa, although Andrea Kimi Antonelli still possessed a decisive straight-line advantage when the opportunity to attack arrived.
Antonelli’s straight-line advantage decides the Belgian GP
Andrea Kimi Antonelli eventually caught Charles Leclerc and completed the overtake through superior power on the Kemmel Straight. In that phase of the race, there was effectively nothing the Ferrari driver could do to defend on the straight.
Once the position had been lost, however, Charles Leclerc managed to remain close to the Mercedes, keeping the gap at approximately one second. Ferrari knew that its driver might still have one final opportunity if he could maintain pressure on Andrea Kimi Antonelli and force the Mercedes driver into a mistake.
Ferrari’s inability to respond to Mercedes on the straights was not the only factor behind the result. Charles Leclerc also identified understeer in important sections of the circuit as a major limitation, contributing to the conclusion that Ferrari missed an opportunity to fight for victory at Spa.
Ferrari adjusts engine braking to create one final opportunity
For that reason, Ferrari’s engineers intelligently suggested another change to the SF-26’s parameters. This time, the team intervened through the engine-braking setting and increased its intensity.
The decision could have served two separate purposes. The primary objective was to address the persistent understeer by helping the car rotate during the corner-entry phase. At the same time, that particular mapping could recover a greater amount of energy under braking.
Increasing engine braking also has a potential disadvantage because it can transfer additional instability towards the rear axle. At that stage of the race, the rear of Charles Leclerc’s Ferrari was not as stable as he would have preferred, but its behaviour was not poor enough to prevent him from attempting the change and continuing to put pressure on Andrea Kimi Antonelli.
Ferrari shows progress in car management compared with 2025
The Belgian Grand Prix showed that Ferrari can remain aggressive and technically responsive even at circuits that do not naturally suit the SF-26. The car could not match Mercedes’ straight-line performance when Andrea Kimi Antonelli launched his decisive attack, but Ferrari continued to optimise its available package throughout the race rather than accepting the limitations of its original configuration.
The final result also supported the wider conclusion that Ferrari’s performance on the Hard tyres offered encouraging signs, despite Charles Leclerc ultimately losing the lead. Lewis Hamilton’s management of a damaged car and Charles Leclerc’s repeated setting changes reflected a team capable of reacting quickly to developing problems.
That represents an important step forward compared with 2025. Ferrari has often struggled in the past when a race moved away from its original plan, but at Spa the team remained composed, extracted performance from two very different situations and kept itself firmly involved in the fight at the front.
Leave a Reply