Was Ferrari really beaten at the Dutch Grand Prix simply because McLaren was faster, or did the final result at Zandvoort hide a very different picture? Analysis of the Ferrari SF-26’s race pace, telemetry and tyre management shows that the Maranello car was significantly more competitive than the finishing order might suggest, with performance that allowed it to remain close to the benchmark for substantial parts of the race.
The technical picture goes far beyond the final classification. Sector-by-sector data helps explain where Ferrari built its performance, where McLaren gained time and why the Scuderia ultimately failed to convert its potential into a podium. It also reinforces what emerged from Ferrari’s alternative tyre strategies at Zandvoort: outright race pace was not the only factor determining the final outcome.
Was the Ferrari SF-26 really slower than McLaren at Zandvoort?
The first major conclusion concerns race pace. Across several stints, Ferrari managed to maintain a rhythm that was effectively comparable with McLaren and, during certain phases, even stronger than Mercedes.
One of the most interesting indicators came during the opening part of the Grand Prix. Charles Leclerc remained behind Andrea Kimi Antonelli, yet the Ferrari driver continued to produce lap times that were, on average, better than those of the Mercedes ahead of him.
That suggests the fundamental limitation of the SF-26 was not pure speed. Ferrari had sufficient pace to remain attached to the leading group, even if converting that performance into track position proved much more difficult.
Ferrari vs McLaren: where the SF-26 gained and lost time
The telemetry comparison highlights very specific differences between the two cars rather than one overwhelming McLaren advantage across the entire lap.
Ferrari appeared more competitive in several areas:
- speed through medium-to-high-speed corners;
- tyre management during the opening laps of a stint;
- minimum speed through Zandvoort’s long corners.
McLaren, by contrast, made up time in different phases:
- traction out of slow corners;
- acceleration along the circuit’s short straights;
- energy management during the final part of a stint.
The McLaren advantage was therefore not enormous in one particular part of the circuit. Instead, it came through a series of smaller gains spread around the lap. That helps explain why Ferrari could look highly competitive without consistently turning its pace into a decisive advantage.
The traction difference is particularly relevant given the broader analysis of the SF-26’s difficulties when accelerating from slower corners, one of the areas where small losses can accumulate throughout a lap.
Did Ferrari’s new SF-26 floor work?
One of the central aspects examined in the latest episode of Undercut is the new floor introduced on the SF-26. The indications from Zandvoort were encouraging, with improved stability through faster corners, more consistent aerodynamic load and more predictable behaviour when managing the tyres.
The floor appears to have widened the car’s operating window, particularly over longer runs. That assessment is consistent with the positive signs already identified from the latest SF-26 aerodynamic upgrade at Zandvoort.
For that reason, Monza now becomes an important test of the real potential of the development. The Italian circuit will impose a very different set of demands and should provide another indication of whether the gains seen in the Netherlands can translate effectively to a contrasting configuration.
Ferrari’s biggest problem was qualifying and execution
The technical analysis leads to another important conclusion: Ferrari did not lose its opportunity primarily because of strategy. There was logic behind giving Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton different approaches to the race.
The greater problem came from what followed. Ferrari lost valuable time through several aspects of its overall execution:
- time lost in the pits;
- management of the pit-stop windows;
- communication between the drivers and the pit wall;
- the overall execution of the Grand Prix.
In Formula 1, those details can amount to several seconds. At Zandvoort, they translated into extremely costly lost points despite the underlying performance of the SF-26.
Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton followed two different races
The internal Ferrari comparison also highlights two very different approaches. Charles Leclerc was highly competitive during the first part of the race, while Lewis Hamilton became stronger during the second half after following a different strategy.
The two programmes produced contrasting ways of managing both tyres and pace. With a podium still potentially within reach, the obvious question is whether Ferrari could have handled the two drivers differently as the race developed.
Ultimately, the difficulty was not creating alternative strategic opportunities but exploiting them fully. Ferrari showed enough speed to put pressure on its direct rivals, yet several elements had to come together for that performance to become a podium result.
Mercedes and McLaren were closer to Ferrari than the result suggests
The data also puts Mercedes’ performance into a different perspective. Andrea Kimi Antonelli and George Russell achieved an important result, but their race pace did not show an obvious superiority over Ferrari.
McLaren remained the reference across the Dutch Grand Prix weekend, but the advantage was considerably smaller than the finishing order alone might suggest. Lando Norris’ victory nevertheless reinforced McLaren’s position at the front, with the team already looking towards further development after its Dutch Grand Prix win.
For Ferrari, that makes the points left on the table at Zandvoort even more significant. The SF-26 had enough underlying performance to compete much more closely than the final positions implied, but pace alone was not enough.
Monza will be a crucial test for the Ferrari SF-26
After Zandvoort, Formula 1 now heads to Monza, where the SF-26 will face an entirely different challenge. The Italian circuit demands very high top speeds, heavy braking and a low-downforce aerodynamic set-up.
That combination should make the Italian Grand Prix an important test of whether Ferrari’s latest developments represent a genuine performance step or whether the encouraging behaviour seen in the Netherlands was particularly well suited to Zandvoort’s circuit characteristics.
The answer will be especially important because Ferrari’s technical development of the SF-26 is now entering another critical phase. Zandvoort suggested that the new floor has improved the car and that race pace can be competitive with the leading teams. Monza will offer a very different environment in which to determine how broadly those gains can be exploited.
Leave a Reply