Ferrari never arrived at the 2026 Italian Grand Prix genuinely expecting to fight for victory, and its difficult Monza weekend ultimately reflected many of the weaknesses the team already knew it would face. The remaining power deficit has not disappeared despite the two developments introduced through the ADUO programme, with some estimates putting the gap at around 20 horsepower, although figures of that kind should be treated with considerable caution.
The disappointing result therefore cannot simply be blamed on the latest engine specification. Monza has always looked likely to be one of the most demanding circuits under the current regulations because of its succession of long straights and the extreme importance of electrical energy management. Ferrari’s ADUO-2 power-unit development helped in some areas, particularly qualifying, but the race exposed limitations that involved much more than outright engine power.
The outcome was clearly poor from both a sporting and technical perspective. Even so, it was broadly consistent with expectations, despite Ferrari team principal Fred Vasseur acknowledging that the performance was worse than anticipated. Leaving aside the questions surrounding the management of Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc, the more revealing story lies in what happened technically throughout the Italian Grand Prix weekend.
Ferrari could not maintain its qualifying balance in the Monza race
The warning signs were already visible during Friday afternoon’s race simulations. The SF-26 cars were losing ground to Mercedes along Monza’s straights, and that deficit became more evident on representative race runs because the amount of energy recoverable over a lap increased from 5 MJ to 7 MJ.
That increase is not automatically an advantage. Recovering another 2 MJ means teams must understand where that energy can be harvested efficiently and how it should subsequently be deployed. Under the 2026 regulations, that interaction has become central to performance, particularly at a circuit as extreme as Monza.
Over one qualifying lap, Ferrari was able to contain much of the disadvantage thanks to an effective energy map developed by the Maranello engineers. In race conditions, however, Boost and Overtake Mode became additional variables, and the deficit had a greater effect on overall performance.
According to Motorsport, Ferrari’s approach may also have involved a gamble in the way electrical energy was distributed. For Sunday, the Italian engineers concentrated more of the deployment on the main straight, an area where Lewis Hamilton was generally the outright reference across the race laps.
The compromise made sense in isolation, but it left Ferrari with less flexibility elsewhere. The SF-26 could look competitive over a single lap when the electrical deployment was carefully optimised, yet reproducing that balance repeatedly during the Grand Prix proved far more difficult.
The SF-26 chassis still showed encouraging qualities
The car itself was not without strengths. In qualifying trim, the SF-26 chassis showed encouraging performance with the floor introduced in the Netherlands, the single-element floor board, the Dutch-specification rear wing, a specially revised FTM system and simplified flaps around the rear-wheel assembly.
Ferrari had specifically modified the SF-26 FTM configuration for Monza in an attempt to reduce drag and improve efficiency. In combination with the rest of the low-downforce package, the car allowed Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton – particularly the British driver – to gain significant time over their rivals through the first chicane.
Overall, the SF-26 again behaved well through the slow and medium-speed corners of the circuit. There had been some balance difficulties on Friday, which led Ferrari to retain the small flaps on the rear wing, but the general handling picture was nevertheless encouraging.
The fundamental problem was that Monza returned Formula 1 to an extreme environment in terms of sensitivity to power and energy usage. Energy management now has a substantial influence across virtually every type of circuit, but the effect becomes especially pronounced at a venue dominated by long periods at full throttle.
That wider relationship between engine performance, efficiency and the chassis is also central to understanding why Ferrari’s SF-26 power-unit development is about more than horsepower. A gain from the combustion engine alone cannot compensate for every disadvantage if the available electrical energy cannot be harvested and deployed with the same effectiveness as Ferrari’s strongest rivals.
Mercedes still holds a major energy-management advantage
Mercedes demonstrated that its advantage in energy management, power delivery and aerodynamic efficiency remains extremely difficult for its rivals to overcome on circuits of this type. Ferrari had found a reasonable compromise considering its weaknesses in energy usage, but the balance could not be maintained once Boost and Overtake Mode became decisive during the race.
Fred Vasseur confirmed the difficulty after the Grand Prix. “It was almost impossible for us to attack or defend. When we attacked someone, we used the battery and then on the next straight we lost the position. We were a little bit stuck strategically,” the Ferrari team principal explained.
According to estimates, using Overtake Mode during the race could account for around seven per cent of the battery’s total charge. For the two Ferraris, that became a genuine game-changing factor because every aggressive attempt to gain a position could leave the car vulnerable immediately afterwards.
Charles Leclerc’s race provided a clear example. After overtaking Pierre Gasly at the first chicane, the Monegasque was passed again by Pierre Gasly approaching the Roggia chicane. Max Verstappen then overtook Charles Leclerc towards Ascari, while Oscar Piastri came close to doing the same approaching Parabolica.
That sequence illustrated Ferrari’s dilemma. Attacking required electrical energy, but consuming that reserve left the SF-26 exposed on the following straight. The challenge was therefore not simply generating enough speed to attempt an overtake; it was having sufficient energy available to complete the move and then defend it.
Charles Leclerc’s crash showed how precise the 2026 cars must be
Charles Leclerc eventually tried, as he often does, to rescue a result that was no longer really available. He pushed beyond the limit and lost the rear of the car after touching the drainage grating on the exit of the final corner.
The detail behind the accident is particularly revealing. On the second lap, Charles Leclerc exited Parabolica using 21 per cent more throttle than on the previous lap, corresponding to an increase of 14 km/h. His altered line while attempting to attack Oscar Piastri also left him with a wider trajectory on corner exit, contributing to the accident.
Looking even more closely, Charles Leclerc had been using two small throttle inputs over the preceding two laps in an attempt to stimulate power delivery. On the second lap, one of those inputs came precisely as he touched the drainage grate, while he was also dealing with the dirty air from Max Verstappen and a less-than-optimal line.
The sequence underlined just how precise drivers must be with the current cars. After the accident, Charles Leclerc explained: “I wanted to accelerate but I was lacking a bit of power; then I had too much, I had the snap and I lost it. I need to look carefully at the data.”
The software controlling the energy map continually increases or reduces the total power delivered depending on the situation. This was not described simply as a technical failure, although Fred Vasseur confirmed the possibility of an anomaly in the system, potentially linked to Ferrari’s unusual deployment strategy for the race.
Instead, the sequence also involved the way Charles Leclerc approached the situation behind the wheel. It was an aggressive method consistent with the Monegasque driver’s characteristic tendency to push the car towards the limit, and the combination of throttle input, dirty air, trajectory and power delivery left almost no margin for error.
Before the weekend, Charles Leclerc had already discussed the implications of Ferrari’s latest developments when assessing the engine and floor upgrades for the Italian Grand Prix. Monza ultimately demonstrated how closely those different areas of performance interact once the car is pushed into race conditions.
Lewis Hamilton had to overwork the tyres to stay in touch
Lewis Hamilton faced a different manifestation of the same problem. The seven-time world champion was forced to adopt an aggressive approach through the corners simply to remain attached to the group ahead, and that regularly pushed his tyres into overheating.
That was one reason why the Medium compound proved to be the wrong choice. Lewis Hamilton had to alternate between personally fast laps and slower ones in which he reduced the pace sufficiently to bring the tyres back into their correct operating window.
The result was a difficult cycle. Pushing hard through the corners helped compensate for the loss on the straights, but doing so created additional thermal stress on the tyres. Easing off restored the tyres, but at the cost of lap time and pressure on the cars ahead.
ADUO-2 helped Ferrari, particularly in qualifying
The updated ADUO-2 power unit nevertheless did its job during the Monza weekend, with the benefit appearing more clearly in qualifying. Ferrari had entered the event expecting an improvement from the latest specification, with earlier expectations surrounding a potential Monza power increase of around 15 horsepower.
A comparison between the two Haas cars provided one indication of the difference. Both were equipped with Ferrari power units, but Oliver Bearman was using the newer version. Esteban Ocon entered the derating phase earlier in the lap than his team-mate, suggesting that the updated specification was better able to maintain its deployment.
The 5 MJ available for recovery over the qualifying lap helped the two Ferrari cars secure positions on the second row, although the session was far from straightforward.
Q2 battery problem again exposes Ferrari execution weakness
At the end of Q2, both Ferrari cars were hit by a battery problem that left them close to the edge of the top ten and at genuine risk of elimination. After qualifying, Charles Leclerc explained that the problem was already known to the team, but that during free practice Ferrari is often able to anticipate it and resolve it before it becomes critical.
Qualifying created a different situation. The compressed timing and preparation required for a flying lap pushed the system beyond its ideal window, producing the issues seen during Q2.
Keeping a power unit inside its correct operating range has become more important than e
Leave a Reply