Ferrari has come away from another Formula 1 weekend with only half of the job completed, underlining a pattern that has become increasingly difficult to ignore in the 2026 season. One of the two cars again failed to finish, while Charles Leclerc and Fred Vasseur have both identified a broader weakness: the SF-26 can show competitive race pace, but Ferrari is still struggling to put every element together when it matters most in qualifying.
At Monza, one Ferrari retired following a driver error. In Madrid, the other retirement came because of a technical braking problem whose exact origin was not yet considered completely clear. Together, the two weekends provide another opportunity to assess a Ferrari campaign that increasingly appears divided into two distinct phases.
Ferrari’s 2026 season increasingly looks divided in two
The first part of the championship, up to the summer break, gave the impression that Ferrari was gradually raising its level from race to race. That progression was visible on circuits where the Italian team was able to dominate, but also at venues such as Canada and Spa-Francorchamps, where the objective was to avoid losing too much ground to its main rival.
Since the Hungarian Grand Prix weekend, however, the picture has changed. Ferrari appears to have lost some performance momentum. The power unit has represented a limitation from the beginning of the season, but more recently other aspects of the SF-26 that had previously been considered strengths have also become part of the discussion.
Calling the situation a genuine downgrade would probably go too far. A more accurate description is that Ferrari appears to have entered a period of stagnation. Updates may continue to arrive, but something extra still seems to be missing when the car reaches the track — the undefined element that turns individual strengths into a consistently solid race weekend.
The broader evolution of the package can be followed through ScuderiaFans’ Ferrari technical analysis, covering the SF-26’s aerodynamic, suspension and power-unit development throughout the season.
Ferrari’s power-unit deficit is no longer the only concern
The engine remains one of the principal limitations, which is why comparisons with Mercedes have repeatedly focused on power-unit performance. Earlier in the season Ferrari could be viewed as the German team’s most direct challenger, but other teams have since improved enough to threaten or overtake the Scuderia’s position in the competitive order.
Red Bull cannot necessarily be assessed as a complete package because of the limitations of the RB22, but McLaren increasingly appears capable of filling that space. When the McLaren suits a circuit particularly well, Lando Norris has been able to fight for major results, provided external circumstances and strategic mistakes from the pit wall do not intervene.
That changing competitive picture makes Ferrari’s own difficulties more important. The team is no longer dealing with only one obvious weakness. It must extract more from a car that can still perform strongly in certain conditions while simultaneously addressing the areas in which its rivals have progressed.
Charles Leclerc identifies Ferrari’s single-lap weakness
One of those areas was highlighted by Charles Leclerc at the end of the Spanish Grand Prix weekend. The Monegasque driver rejected the idea that Ferrari is fundamentally worse than its competitors, but acknowledged that the SF-26 remains weaker over a single qualifying lap than it is during lower-fuel phases of the race.
“I don’t think at all that we are worse off than the others. I simply think that, in general, our car is a little weaker over one lap compared with our pace with a low fuel load in the race,” Charles Leclerc explained.
The Ferrari driver then highlighted an area in which McLaren had held a clear advantage in Madrid.
“When you really have to attack the kerbs, particularly here in Madrid, McLaren was extremely strong, while we were a little bit on the wrong side of things. So we paid the price this weekend probably because of that,” Charles Leclerc added.
That assessment fits the technical compromises seen around Madring, where Charles Leclerc’s 2026 Ferrari campaign has continued to expose the difference between the SF-26’s potential and the level Ferrari can consistently extract from it.
Ferrari has still not taken a pole position in 2026
Looking back across the season, Ferrari has yet to secure a pole position despite coming close on several occasions. Race performance has generally reached a higher level than qualifying performance, creating a recurring contrast between Saturday and Sunday.
The issue is particularly noticeable when considering Charles Leclerc. In previous seasons, the Monegasque driver often produced exceptional Saturday performances by pushing both his own limits and those of the car. This year, extracting that same level of qualifying performance has appeared more difficult.
Part of the problem is an incomplete feeling with the new generation of car. Early in the season, Charles Leclerc had already acknowledged that the SF-26 did not allow him to attack qualifying in the way he wanted.
That makes the team’s qualifying problem broader than a single Madrid weekend. Ferrari can be competitive through different phases of a session, yet it has repeatedly failed to turn that underlying level into the decisive lap needed for pole position. The trend can be explored further through the ScuderiaFans F1 Qualifying Pace & Sector Comparison.
Fred Vasseur says Ferrari still cannot put everything together
Fred Vasseur has returned to the same subject on several occasions. The Ferrari team principal believes the missing element in qualifying is the team’s ability to combine all of its performance at the decisive moment.
That idea of putting everything together continues to define Ferrari’s Saturday problem. The car may show competitive potential during individual stages of qualifying, but the complete package has too often failed to arrive when the final lap is required.
“If today I had to identify one area on which the team needs to concentrate, it would be the evolution of performance during qualifying rather than pure pace, meaning the step forward you are able to make during the session,” Fred Vasseur explained.
The distinction is significant. The problem is not necessarily that the SF-26 starts qualifying without enough speed. Ferrari’s concern is how effectively it develops that performance as the circuit evolves, tyres are prepared differently and the session moves towards its decisive runs.
Ferrari cannot simply use 2027 as an excuse
At this stage of a Ferrari season, discussion inevitably begins to turn towards the following year. With a major recovery before the end of the current championship appearing increasingly unlikely, the question becomes whether the Maranello team should redirect more attention towards 2027.
Fred Vasseur has already addressed that issue. As reported by the international edition of Motorsport, the French manager believes Ferrari’s current situation differs significantly from the position it occupied 12 months earlier because much of today’s development work can transfer directly to next year’s project.
“We are not in the situation we were in 12 months ago. Today, what we develop can be transferred directly to next year’s project. We will continue to work, but perhaps on different aspects and details. Around 80% of the development we are carrying out now will be transferred to the 2027 car,” Fred Vasseur explained.
That position is consistent with Ferrari’s philosophy from the start of the year: focus on each weekend, extract the maximum available performance and keep trying to close the gap to the competition rather than abandoning the current car prematurely.
The reasoning behind continuing with the SF-26 is examined in more detail in ScuderiaFans’ analysis of why Ferrari believes its current development can help the 2027 Formula 1 car.
Madrid raised questions beyond pure Ferrari performance
The concern is that Ferrari is now finding itself surrounded by questions that extend beyond technical performance. Direction, sporting management and strategic execution are also becoming part of the debate.
Focusing on each Grand Prix individually is a reasonable approach, but it works only if the team genuinely has the situation under control. Madrid provided reasons to question whether that was completely the case.
Fred Vasseur repeatedly acknowledged that Ferrari had hoped for an unusual race scenario and a favourable intervention, potentially through a Safety Car. The decision to leave car number 16 on track for such an extended period was also linked to that possibility.
The Madrid weekend therefore became another example of the tension between Ferrari’s underlying pace and its ability to convert that potential into a complete result. The broader context around the team’s management and race decisions can also be seen in the analysis of Fred Vasseur’s Ferrari management dilemma after recent races.
Ferrari must manage the present rather than rely on future possibilities
The Ferrari team principal is justified in defending the importance of approaching every race individually. The difficulty comes when strategy begins to depend heavily on hoping for an external event capable of changing the competitive picture.
If a race plan relies on the possibility of a Safety Car or another exceptional circumstance, it can create the impression that the car does not possess enough performance to challenge the opposition directly on that particular weekend.
That is the central concern surrounding Ferrari now. The team has identified several of its limitations, understands that much of its current development can carry over into 2027 and still possesses clear strengths in the SF-26. Yet those individual elements must eventually become a complete competitive package.
For the moment, the same problem keeps returning. Ferrari can show race pace, technical potential and promising individual characteristics, but qualifying execution, power-unit limitations and strategic circumstances continue to prevent those strengths from consistently coming together. Looking towards 2027 may be logical, but the future cannot become an explanation for failing to manage the present.
