Ferrari’s telemetry from Friday practice at the 2026 United States Grand Prix reveals where Lewis Hamilton lost 0.615 seconds to Charles Leclerc, despite both drivers using the updated SF-26 aerodynamic package in FP2. Charles Leclerc topped both sessions at Austin, but the most revealing finding was not simply the difference in lap time. The data shows that Lewis Hamilton’s deficit was concentrated in the slow- and medium-speed corners, particularly during corner entry and rotation, rather than on the straights.
Ferrari used FP1 to compare two aerodynamic specifications before fitting the latest upgrades to both cars for the afternoon session. The package focuses on the floor and the management of airflow around the sidepods and rear of the SF-26. Charles Leclerc acknowledged an improvement, although he described the gains as relatively modest. For the Monegasque, the most encouraging development was immediately finding a well-balanced car, something Lewis Hamilton struggled to replicate.
Ferrari’s new floor: what the FP1 comparison actually revealed
During FP1 at the Circuit of The Americas, Charles Leclerc ran Ferrari’s latest aerodynamic package while Lewis Hamilton used the previous specification. The decision to extend the upgrade to both cars for FP2 indicates that Maranello’s initial technical evaluation was positive. However, the difference between the drivers’ lap times cannot be used to calculate the performance gain delivered by the new floor.
Driving styles, tyre conditions and setup choices can all influence the comparison, while the circuit itself evolves rapidly throughout a practice session. The two Ferrari drivers were therefore providing useful information about the different specifications, but not under perfectly identical conditions.
The morning programme was nevertheless valuable because it allowed Ferrari to assess the revised aerodynamic configuration against a familiar baseline. The team’s approach and the initial findings are examined further in our analysis of Ferrari’s split-specification Austin upgrade test.
When the telemetry is divided into the same 16 geometric windows, the comparison reveals an important difference in how the two drivers accumulated their lap times. During FP1, Lewis Hamilton was already losing approximately four tenths of a second through the slow-speed corners, while the relative deficit in high-speed sections was modest.
Between FP1 and FP2, the most noticeable shift occurred in the medium-speed corners. This variation must be considered alongside the setup changes made between sessions rather than interpreted as a proven consequence of the updated floor. The telemetry identifies where time was lost, but it does not, on its own, establish why the difference occurred.
Ferrari FP2 telemetry: Lewis Hamilton loses most of the 0.615-second gap in corners
With both Ferrari SF-26 cars running the updated aerodynamic specification in FP2, Charles Leclerc recorded a fastest lap of 1:35.291 on Soft tyres. Lewis Hamilton’s best effort, also on Soft tyres, was 1:35.906, leaving the seven-time world champion 0.615 seconds behind his teammate.
The telemetry breakdown provides a clearer understanding of how that difference developed. Almost the entire deficit accumulated in the slow- and medium-speed corners, while the high-speed sections were much more closely matched.
- Slow-speed corners: Lewis Hamilton lost approximately 0.342 seconds.
- Medium-speed corners: Lewis Hamilton lost approximately 0.282 seconds.
- High-speed corners: The deficit was only around 0.027 seconds.
- Straights: Lewis Hamilton recovered approximately 0.037 seconds.
These are cumulative times measured across common distance windows, rather than direct measurements of aerodynamic downforce or mechanical grip. Small differences can also arise from the way the lap is divided and the figures are rounded.
Nevertheless, the overall pattern is significant. Lewis Hamilton was not losing time because his Ferrari was slower in a straight line. In fact, he recovered a small amount of time on the straights. The more substantial problem was his difficulty completing corners with the same efficiency as Charles Leclerc.
This distinction is important when assessing Ferrari’s new floor. The updated aerodynamic package may have improved the SF-26’s overall behaviour, but the drivers were not extracting its performance in the same way. The lap-time gap points towards differences in cornering execution and car balance rather than a straightforward difference in maximum speed.
Corner entry and rotation: where Lewis Hamilton struggled most
The slow-speed telemetry provides an even more detailed explanation of Lewis Hamilton’s difficulties. Across the six slow-speed windows, the British driver lost approximately 0.209 seconds during corner entry and another 0.340 seconds through the middle of the corners.
He recovered around 0.206 seconds during the exit phases, bringing the overall deficit in those sections back to approximately 0.342 seconds once rounding is taken into account.
In other words, a substantial proportion of the lost time had already accumulated before Lewis Hamilton reached the point where he could begin accelerating out of the corner. It would therefore be misleading to reduce his performance deficit to a simple traction problem.
The medium-speed corners revealed a slightly different distribution. Lewis Hamilton lost approximately 0.077 seconds during corner entry, 0.168 seconds in the middle of the corner and another 0.037 seconds during the exit phase.
Those figures suggest that the number 44 Ferrari was not fundamentally lacking performance when accelerating. Instead, the more important difficulty appeared to be obtaining predictable rotation as the car transitioned from braking into the cornering phase.
This phase is particularly sensitive because the driver must manage the reduction in braking pressure while asking the front tyres to generate the lateral grip required to turn. If the balance is inconsistent, the driver may struggle to commit fully to the corner without making corrections or adjusting the intended trajectory.
The data does not establish a single mechanical or aerodynamic cause for that behaviour. However, it highlights the specific driving phases where Lewis Hamilton was losing the most time and explains why Ferrari’s setup work must focus on more than simply increasing available downforce.
Ferrari team radio identifies critical losses between Turns 7 and 12
The radio conversation between Lewis Hamilton and race engineer Carlo Santi provides an important connection between the telemetry and the driver’s experience behind the wheel.
After questioning where he was losing approximately half a second to Charles Leclerc, Lewis Hamilton received a detailed explanation of the areas where his teammate was performing more effectively.
Carlo Santi identified the apex of Turn 7, the exits of Turns 9 and 11, and the braking and cornering phases at Turn 12. At the latter corner, the engineer specifically highlighted the peak braking pressure and the way the brake was released.
These observations are consistent with the wider telemetry picture, which places a considerable proportion of the deficit around corner entry and the middle of the turn. They also explain why the gap cannot be attributed to one isolated mistake or simply to insufficient straight-line speed.
The complete exchange, including the areas highlighted by the Ferrari pit wall, can be explored in our report on Lewis Hamilton’s questions about his six-tenth deficit to Charles Leclerc during Austin FP2.
Following the discussion, Lewis Hamilton requested two additional points of front-wing adjustment. The objective was to obtain a car that responded more effectively on corner entry and provided greater confidence during the initial steering input.
The request is particularly relevant because the telemetry suggests that the British driver’s biggest difficulties occurred before and during the rotation phase, rather than exclusively when accelerating away from the corner.
Why more front wing may not automatically solve Lewis Hamilton’s balance problems
Increasing front-wing angle can improve the aerodynamic response at the front of the car, but it does not guarantee that the overall handling problem will disappear. A change that improves front-end response can also alter the balance between the front and rear axles.
Lewis Hamilton explained that his side of the Ferrari garage had pursued a different setup direction during FP2, leaving him particularly uncomfortable with the SF-26’s behaviour over the bumps at Austin.
That detail is important because an aerodynamic platform that responds inconsistently to changes in ride height or load transfer can become difficult to predict. Adding more front-end response may help the car turn, but it can also make the rear less stable if the overall balance is not properly controlled.
Ferrari therefore needs to establish whether additional front-wing angle provides the desired improvement without introducing further instability elsewhere in the corner.
The issue is especially relevant to the team’s latest aerodynamic development, which focuses on the floor and airflow management around the rear of the SF-26. The technical objectives behind these changes are examined in our detailed breakdown of Ferrari’s four key SF-26 aerodynamic upgrades for Austin.
However, the presence of a new floor should not automatically be treated as the cause of Lewis Hamilton’s handling difficulties. The configuration had already demonstrated competitive potential with Charles Leclerc, and the British driver’s setup programme differed from that of his teammate.
Ferrari’s setup priorities: helping Lewis Hamilton regain confidence
Ahead of qualifying, the priority for Lewis Hamilton and his engineers is to assess the SF-26’s stability during the transition from maximum braking pressure to brake release. Comparing the car’s response with that experienced by Charles Leclerc over bumps and through changes of direction should also help identify the most productive setup adjustments.
The telemetry indicates that Lewis Hamilton needs a more predictable operating window rather than simply more aerodynamic load. A car that allows the driver to trust its response during corner entry and rotation could help recover time in precisely the sections where the largest deficits appeared on Friday.
Driving lines may also contribute to the difference. Charles Leclerc’s confidence in the balance of his SF-26 allowed him to refine his approach to the final sequence of three corners, illustrating how a stable and predictable car can help a driver optimise the trajectory through demanding sections.
This does not mean that Charles Leclerc’s advantage can be attributed entirely to setup or that Lewis Hamilton’s difficulties can be resolved through one adjustment. The telemetry describes the observed performance, while driving technique, tyre behaviour and car settings all remain relevant factors.
Additional insight into the differences between the two drivers can be obtained through the ScuderiaFans F1 telemetry and corner-by-corner comparison tool, which allows detailed examination of speed, braking and other performance characteristics when the relevant session data is available.
Ferrari’s new floor works, but the Austin data highlights an important limitation
Charles Leclerc’s assessment of Ferrari’s updated floor remains an important reference point. The Monegasque recognised a performance improvement, but described it as limited rather than transformative. Friday’s strong cornering performance therefore provides encouragement without proving that the SF-26 has undergone a substantial competitive breakthrough.
Equally, the speed demonstrated through the corners does not establish that Ferrari has achieved comparable gains in traction or rear-tyre management during longer stints. Those aspects require separate evaluation under representative conditions.
After two practice sessions, the overall picture is relatively clear. Ferrari intends to continue using the new floor, having obtained positive initial indications from its technical evaluation. Charles Leclerc has already demonstrated that the revised SF-26 can deliver competitive single-lap performance at Austin.
For Lewis Hamilton, however, the immediate challenge is different. The telemetry shows that most of his 0.615-second deficit was accumulated during the phases of a corner where confidence, braking control and predictable rotation are particularly important.
The updated aerodynamic package has not eliminated the need to find an effective setup for each driver. Ferrari’s next task is to provide Lewis Hamilton with a balance that allows him to exploit the SF-26 through the decisive sections of the lap, rather than simply searching for more raw performance.
That is the most significant conclusion from Friday’s Austin telemetry: the new floor has produced encouraging indications, but the difference between Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton is primarily visible in how effectively they can use the car through the corners. Whether Ferrari can reduce that gap through setup adjustments remains one of the important questions ahead of qualifying.
Leave a Reply