F1 | Ferrari: Leclerc’s Q3 struggle highlights the complexity of the new power units
The 2026 power units are incredibly complex and sensitive. Small adjustments to the hybrid strategy can significantly affect lap times, and for teams—especially in this early phase—it is understandably challenging to perfectly calibrate the usage models. Charles Leclerc’s problem in Q3 provides a clear example.
As is normal at the start of a technical cycle, a key factor must be considered: these new power units are extremely complex, and their usage strategies are not straightforward. Experience builds over time, and even during a race weekend, variables can emerge that change the overall picture and provide a new, sometimes even surprising, perspective.
This was exactly what happened to Charles Leclerc in qualifying: on his final attempt—the lap that seemed enough to challenge for third place—it suddenly turned into a missed opportunity. On the long straight of sector three, the Monegasque ran out of energy earlier than his rivals, losing the crucial tenths that cost him a chance to fight for the second row.
Why is the issue faced by Leclerc so interesting? Because it perfectly illustrates why, even for teams, these power units remain extremely complex. Developing effective usage models is incredibly difficult, even when using the same engine. Tweaking just a few parameters across a lap can alter energy management, as we already saw in Melbourne.
At the end of the Australian qualifying, Charles Leclerc had explained that his result, as well as the gap to Mercedes, was partly affected by hybrid management issues, with parameters not correctly configured, similar to what happened in Q2. In that case, returning to the garage allowed him to reset and correct some values. In Shanghai, however, that option was not available.
As in the previous regulatory cycle, modern power units include systems that adapt energy management depending on conditions like grip, tires, and how a lap is driven. The difference now is that energy management has a much greater influence, especially in qualifying, where everything is amplified compared to the race, where Ferrari believes it is closer to the competition.
Without MGU-H support and with the MGU-K effectively tripled in power output, understanding where and how to deploy energy—and where to recover it—has become essential for optimizing lap time. A wrong strategy can cost several tenths. This makes the Monegasque’s case particularly interesting, as it shows how the power unit reacted to certain driving inputs.
Examining Charles Leclerc’s two Q3 laps reveals differences that may seem minor at first glance but have a significant impact. On his first attempt in the final session, Leclerc approached turn 8 and the run to the braking zone of turn 11 differently—not only compared to his final Q3 lap but also compared to Q2.
The differences are especially clear when comparing the two attempts. For instance, between turns 8 and 9, one of the most delicate stretches for energy management—since the FIA allowed a reduced power output there compared to the rest of the lap—Leclerc chose a different approach, even using a different gear.
On the first Q3 attempt, he used fourth gear, while on the second push he switched to fifth, resulting in a noticeable difference in engine revs. This different approach directly affected cornering speeds, which were about 15 km/h higher on the second attempt.
Similarly, on the straight leading into turn 11, Charles Leclerc’s behavior was notable. On the first attempt, the power unit started cutting energy early, likely entering super-clipping very soon, even though that point is one of the most effective for energy recovery. Again, there was a difference in approach.
During the first attempt, the Ferrari driver stayed in sixth gear, keeping high revs, while on the second push he went up to seventh, resulting in a speed difference of roughly 17 km/h. He ended up with more energy to exploit on the long straight, so that on the first attempt he not only reached a peak speed 9 km/h higher but also did so later, meaning more energy was available in the acceleration zone, before the derating phase.
Among the top drivers, Charles Leclerc appeared to experience the most noticeable variation in energy management between Q2 and his first Q3 push. Others maintained a much more consistent strategy across laps. It’s therefore no surprise that after his first attempt, Charles Leclerc immediately reported over the radio that the lap felt negative, with his engineer explaining that two of the six-tenths gap to Hamilton in sector two came from turn 8.
Clearly, the system adapts based on prior activity, and as this was a Sprint qualifying, there was no time to return to the pits and recalibrate parameters. Observing Leclerc’s and Hamilton’s two best laps shows interesting points. Between turns 7 and 8, Hamilton anticipates the downshift, keeps revs high, and is more cautious with the throttle before turn 9, conserving energy.
Since Lewis Hamilton reached a lower peak speed before turn 6, Charles Leclerc found himself in a situation where the system readjusted energy deployment, cutting power earlier on the long straight. However, the differences in deployment were not just related to the final attempt; they began earlier, making Charles Leclerc’s Q3 extremely complex to manage, with a non-linear response from the power unit.
Leave a Reply