Ferrari left the Azerbaijan Grand Prix defeated, but the Baku weekend also developed in a way that continually worked against the SF-26. The street circuit amplified both the strengths of Mercedes’ W17 and the weaknesses of Ferrari’s current concept, leaving Maranello facing another reminder of the compromises imposed by its power deficit and aerodynamic philosophy. The picture could change at the 2026 Bahrain Grand Prix at Sepang, although the Malaysian circuit may not prove as favourable as initial expectations suggested.
Ferrari faced a second perfect storm in Baku
In terms of layout, Baku has several characteristics in common with Monza. There are multiple power-limited sections separated by sharp 90-degree corners, without the need for especially sophisticated aerodynamic qualities or major setup compromises. With effectively no tyre degradation in the race, the main challenge was managing oversteer, particularly in qualifying, while avoiding overheating.
The current generation of Formula 1 cars is also more rear-limited than previous generations. This is not necessarily a structural characteristic, but a consequence of how much power is delivered on corner exit. Under the power-limited pending period, 200 kW is deployed for at least one second unless the FIA introduces specific exemptions.
Mercedes currently has an extremely effective package for these conditions. The W17’s strong rear end allows the car to manage the high torque generated out of slow corners while limiting the micro-sliding that wastes energy. Its high available power, combining an internal combustion engine advantage with an extremely efficient ERS, gives Mercedes flexibility not only in energy management but also in setup. The team can therefore accept softer-than-average suspension settings designed to maximise traction, creating a virtuous circle.
The scale of the Mercedes advantage is not simply a question of peak power. It comes from the interaction between generated drag, delivered power, the mechanical platform and energy management. The W17 can minimise the amount of time spent recharging compared with its rivals and use less aggressive energy-saving deployment maps because it makes better use of the energy available. The wider performance picture can be explored through the ScuderiaFans Ferrari vs F1 rivals statistics.
Why Ferrari cannot simply copy Mercedes
Could the other teams simply improve in the same areas? The problem is that the biggest advantages are achieved during the opening stages of acceleration, when the penalty created by aerodynamic drag is lower. To compensate for a significant horsepower deficit, more electrical energy has to be concentrated in the initial phase of corner exit, with the price then paid towards the end of the straight or lap.
Ferrari follows almost the opposite philosophy, and under the current regulations that approach cannot completely compensate for a significant power deficit. Focusing heavily on aerodynamic development cannot erase the consequences of the engine department’s difficult winter. Adding downforce also inevitably generates additional induced drag, cancelling out part of the progress achieved elsewhere.
As the seasons progress, finding major gains on the chassis side will also become increasingly difficult, potentially creating something close to a technical dead end. The consequences are already visible. The SF-26 has recently been running stiffer than usual in an attempt to minimise losses at high speed, but that produces a nervous car that is far from ideal when performance in the longitudinal phases needs to be maximised. Baku provided another example of why questions have emerged over whether Ferrari has slipped towards becoming Formula 1’s fourth-fastest team.
Charles Leclerc’s throttle use reveals Ferrari’s compromise
Telemetry showed that Charles Leclerc was consistently the most aggressive on the throttle during qualifying, both when approaching corner exit and when accelerating away from the apex. That was probably the only way to make the SF-26 work effectively, limiting the amount of time lost when accelerating out of slow corners.
There may, however, be another reason behind the stiff suspension settings Ferrari has used at recent events. An especially aggressive aerodynamic platform, exploiting the load generated by the individual aero surfaces, requires the mechanical platform to remain as stable as possible. This limits variations in the airflow reaching the car’s aerodynamic surfaces.
Ferrari may have pushed this approach further than others, not necessarily because of an inherent flaw, but because its power deficit encourages the team to maximise performance in sections where cornering speed carries more importance.
At the Madring, the SF-26 was particularly effective through the final sector and its sequence of high-speed changes of direction. That came at the expense of other areas, including the final slow corners and the car’s ability to attack the kerbs. Given the way the SF-26 was conceived, this appears to be the most effective way to maximise its potential, producing handling tendencies that should not automatically be interpreted as structural weaknesses.
Why Ferrari’s rear instability is not necessarily a fundamental flaw
The SF-26 has repeatedly been criticised for an unstable rear end despite its FTM system being designed to maximise rear aerodynamic performance. The explanation is linked to the same compromise. Ferrari is forced to maximise power delivery during the very first phase of corner exit, creating additional difficulty in managing rear-axle temperatures and producing micro-sliding that is difficult to control.
This behaviour has been especially visible on rear-limited European circuits, most notably Austria and Hungary.
That raises an obvious question: why did the SF-26 perform well on very fast circuits such as Silverstone and Spa? Several factors contributed. Ferrari’s chassis advantage was still significant at that stage of the season, while carrying high speed through sections such as Maggotts and Becketts reduced the amount of energy required on corner exit and allowed more to be saved for the following straights.
The relative shortage of slow corners also helped hide the internal combustion engine deficit. On low-energy-density circuits, where the FIA reduces the permitted amount of recoverable energy, Mercedes can exploit less of its advantage because it cannot recover substantially more energy than its competitors.
The SF-26 remains gentle on its tyres
Another characteristic of the Ferrari is that it has generally been gentle on its tyres, particularly in high-degradation races. That characteristic can also be connected to the difficulties seen in qualifying on softer compounds, alongside a qualifying engine map that has not matched Mercedes’ level.
Earlier in the season, Jérôme d’Ambrosio described the car as difficult to take to the limit, another characteristic that can be connected to its generally stiff platform.
The SF-26 therefore did not suddenly become an uncompetitive car after Hungary. Instead, the races that followed placed greater emphasis on aerodynamic efficiency. With a significant horsepower deficit and an aerodynamic platform that needs to remain as stable as possible by design, the expected performance simply did not materialise.
Ferrari could improve at Sepang, but expectations have changed
The situation could change in Malaysia, although Ferrari is unlikely to reproduce its summer form automatically. A stiff platform should work well at Sepang, but McLaren has become another variable affecting expectations for the Scuderia. The characteristics of the circuit and Pirelli’s tyre selection are examined further in our analysis of why Sepang’s compounds could suit the Ferrari SF-26 better than Baku.
The McLaren MCL40 began from a difficult baseline, something acknowledged by those directly involved, but targeted aerodynamic development has since unlocked performance.
The new package introduced in Baku changed the aerodynamic philosophy of the McLaren. Previously, the extremely strong downwash generated by the sidepods was designed to accelerate airflow before it reached the diffuser. The latest solution instead follows a direction more similar to Mercedes and Ferrari. The sidepods retain their cascading shape, but the effect is less pronounced.
The double-floor effect is now maximised in an attempt to seal the airflow travelling towards the diffuser and protect it more effectively from turbulence created by the front and rear tyres. The corresponding changes to the rear corner also make it clear that McLaren is now managing tyre squirt differently.
Ferrari’s Zandvoort update improved the floor but could not solve everything
Ferrari’s latest update, introduced at Zandvoort, improved the floor’s aerodynamic map by distributing load more effectively, particularly towards the diffuser. The change was intended to improve the SF-26’s overall efficiency, an area that inevitably remains less than ideal within the current regulatory environment.
At Baku, however, several factors went worse than expected. Pirelli supplied tyres running at higher pressures than usual, which did not help the drivers. Lewis Hamilton was particularly affected and opted for a higher-downforce configuration, featuring the floorboard with three vertical elements, in an attempt to put more energy into the tyre carcass.
The solution did not deliver the desired effect. Instead, it increased the SF-26’s deficit on the straights, reinforcing the same compromise already visible elsewhere across the car.
The vicious circle limiting Ferrari’s SF-26
Ferrari therefore finds itself in the opposite situation to Mercedes: instead of a virtuous circle, the SF-26 is caught in a vicious one. Requiring a stiffer platform makes it more difficult for the car to deliver consistent performance because its operating window becomes narrower.
This may not be an inherent characteristic at the heart of the SF-26 itself, but rather a behaviour created by the combination of conditions and compromises surrounding the package.
The tyres then suffer as another consequence. Less stable contact with the asphalt makes the thermal window more difficult to maintain, compounding the problems created by the power delivery, suspension stiffness and aerodynamic requirements already described.
Sepang therefore offers Ferrari an opportunity for a different competitive picture, but not necessarily an escape from the compromises that have shaped the SF-26 since the summer. The car’s underlying qualities remain, yet Baku again demonstrated how strongly its performance can depend on the interaction between power, energy management, aerodynamics, mechanical setup and tyre behaviour.
Leave a Reply