Ferrari is currently dealing with a series of problems that do not concern only the engine alone, but extend across multiple technical and operational areas of the overall package. The Formula 1 2026 project is heavily influenced by the performance of the power unit, as is well known in the current technical regulations era, but the SF-26 has also shown additional critical issues that must be addressed in a structured and systematic way. These are not isolated problems, but rather interconnected weaknesses that require a coordinated development response.
Until the ADUO allows the Italian team to homologate the second version of the power unit, the situation remains constrained by regulatory timing, and as a result it becomes essential for the team to remain united internally and to focus on extracting performance through careful setup optimisation and detailed engineering work on the current car. In this context, Frédéric Vasseur, Ferrari team principal, has hinted at several underlying aspects that are being analysed within the organisation, even if not always openly discussed in public communications.
F1 Ferrari: Miami went as expected
Ferrari has not yet managed to close the performance gap to Mercedes, and this remains one of the central competitive issues of the season. During the most recent race weekend, the updates introduced on the car provided some positive indications in isolated conditions, showing that certain directions of development are valid, but they still failed to deliver the decisive step forward that many inside and outside the team had been expecting.
This outcome, when analysed in detail, is not particularly surprising. The technical analysis carried out after the weekend confirms that expectations were somewhat higher than what the current baseline of the SF-26 can realistically deliver. The updates improved specific areas, but did not fundamentally change the overall performance ceiling of the car.
As already highlighted in internal and external technical assessments, the main limitation of the SF-26 is not related to the chassis or aerodynamic platform itself, which remain structurally sound within their design philosophy, but rather to the clear performance deficit imposed by the current power unit. This is a fundamental constraint that affects every single lap of performance, especially in race conditions.
This objective technical reality appears to contrast, at least partially, with the public communication approach adopted by Frédéric Vasseur. In the usual post-race interviews, the French team principal has tended to avoid directly addressing the most sensitive performance issues, often choosing a more generalised explanation framework instead of focusing on specific weaknesses.
While this cautious communication strategy can be understood as a way to maintain internal stability within the team and avoid unnecessary external pressure, it also reflects a very delicate phase of management. In such phases, what becomes essential is a tangible technical response on track, rather than only structural explanations or long-term planning discussions. Even without explicitly detailing all issues, Frédéric Vasseur has still indirectly acknowledged that additional hidden weaknesses exist within the current Ferrari car package.
These limitations are difficult to fully interpret from the outside, and even within the paddock they require deep telemetry analysis and correlation work between simulator data and on-track behaviour. Precisely because of these less visible weaknesses, the French manager has reiterated that the development programme must proceed in a fully comprehensive way, covering all performance areas of the car simultaneously, rather than concentrating resources on a single direction such as power unit improvement alone. The Ferrari SF-26 clearly requires a broader and more balanced development strategy.
Ferrari, tyre management is a key issue that must be studied
The telemetry analysis from the Miami Grand Prix weekend provides a very clear and consistent conclusion: Ferrari did not have the overall race pace required to compete at the front across a full race distance. This performance limitation was also openly acknowledged by Charles Leclerc after the Miami round, as the Monegasque described in a very transparent manner the difficulties experienced throughout the 300 kilometres of the race.
The comments made by Charles Leclerc reflected a visible level of frustration, which became even more evident considering the early stages of the race, where he had managed to lead and control the pace. The disappointment was amplified by the final outcome, as the performance trend deteriorated significantly after the initial phase of the Grand Prix.
In modern Formula 1, teams continuously dissect every single lap of the race, analysing real-time telemetry data, tire degradation patterns and multiple dynamic variables that evolve throughout the stint. These include track temperature evolution, asphalt grip changes, tyre thermal degradation cycles, and also track position relative to other competitors.
Frédéric Vasseur highlighted in this context that the SF-26 was only able to effectively dictate the race pace during the very first laps of the Grand Prix. This performance window was mainly possible due to clean air conditions, which allowed Charles Leclerc to push without aerodynamic disturbance and manage tyre temperatures more efficiently.
However, this optimal performance phase was extremely limited. Only in that specific early window did the Ferrari SF-26 manage to match the pace of its direct rivals. Vasseur later acknowledged that the moment Charles Leclerc was overtaken, the pace of car number 16 dropped significantly and consistently. This is considered a key analytical indicator of a deeper structural limitation that Ferrari must urgently address through development and setup optimisation.
Does dirty air affect the SF-26?
Telemetry data clearly confirms that the SF-26 experiences major difficulties when following other cars closely in race conditions. Running in turbulent air, commonly referred to as dirty air, leads to excessive thermal buildup in the rear tyres, which becomes a central limiting factor over long stints. These temperature variations may appear relatively small numerically, often just a few degrees, but in Formula 1 performance terms they are extremely significant. The Ferrari SF-26 was already operating very close to the optimal rear tyre performance window, meaning that even minor fluctuations can push the tyres outside their ideal range.
When following another car, the increase in tread temperature accelerates degradation, creating a negative thermal cycle that progressively destroys race pace. This leads to reduced grip, increased sliding, and ultimately a continuous performance drop over several laps. The Safety Car phase, which naturally compresses the field, theoretically offered teams the opportunity to reset strategies and potentially use overtake modes more effectively. However, for Ferrari this scenario did not translate into a real competitive advantage. Even with maximum deployment of available engine modes, the SF-26 was unable to sustain the required pace, mainly due to the underlying power unit deficit.
Another contributing factor appears to be aerodynamic sensitivity. It is highly likely that the turbulent airflow generated by the cars ahead negatively affects the aerodynamic efficiency of the Ferrari SF-26. The car appears to be particularly sensitive to clean air conditions, which means that any disturbance in airflow significantly reduces overall performance stability. All of these combined elements reinforce a clear and unavoidable conclusion: regardless of external conditions, the Ferrari SF-26 in its Miami specification did not possess the necessary race pace to realistically challenge Mercedes and McLaren on both straights and medium-speed sections of the circuit.
Ferrari: extensive simulator work to understand what went wrong after those 15 laps
The overall architecture of the Ferrari SF-26 package remains fundamentally solid, even though it continues to suffer from specific weaknesses in key performance areas. In quantitative terms, the car is consistently estimated to be missing around one to two tenths of a second per lap across different sessions and conditions.
Considering that the technical regulations and baseline performance levels are expected to remain largely stable until well into June, the primary objective for Ferrari is not a radical redesign, but rather a deeper understanding of how to extract the maximum potential from the current package. The simulator is currently the most important tool available to achieve this goal. Over the next 10 days, the Ferrari engineers and technicians will focus heavily on simulation work, aiming to replicate race conditions as accurately as possible and isolate the factors that caused the performance drop after the opening stint in Miami.
The initial laps led by Charles Leclerc are now under detailed technical review, with the objective of understanding precisely what changed in car behaviour after the first phase of the race. Setup configuration remains a highly complex and wide-ranging parameter system, which must be optimised carefully through correct balance adjustments and temperature management strategies.
Tyre overheating, in particular, is a phenomenon that can be partially controlled and improved through setup refinement and better energy management across a stint.
Looking ahead to Montreal, Ferrari expects a completely different competitive scenario. The circuit layout is not identical to Miami, but it still includes several sections where the SF-26 is expected to struggle. This is especially true in the high-speed portions of the track, where the energy deficit of the car will become more apparent and will likely have a significant impact on lap time consistency.
The outcome of the weekend will therefore depend entirely on how effectively Ferrari can reduce the engine performance gap while maximising the strengths of the car in the more favourable sections of the circuit, extracting every possible advantage from setup, tyre management and operational execution.
Leave a Reply