Ferrari’s SF-26 is facing a worrying race-pace deficit at the 2026 Brazilian Grand Prix, with Friday’s practice data placing the Italian team sixth on long-run performance despite ranking fourth over a single lap. At Interlagos, Mercedes established a clear benchmark through Andrea Kimi Antonelli, who topped FP2 with a 1:10.763, finishing 0.253 seconds ahead of Lando Norris. But the most revealing numbers concern where Mercedes gains its advantage, how the changing asphalt affects performance, and why Ferrari appears to struggle considerably more over consecutive laps than during qualifying simulations.
Three main questions dominated the build-up to the São Paulo weekend: how the resurfaced asphalt would evolve, whether Pirelli’s compounds could withstand longer stints, and how teams would manage electrical energy across Interlagos’s two main straights. Friday’s running provided some initial answers, although important uncertainties remain ahead of qualifying and Sunday’s race.
The overall picture is relatively clear. The circuit improved by almost one second between FP1 and FP2, with most of that gain coming in the second sector. Mercedes built its advantage primarily on the straights rather than through the corners. McLaren emerged as the second-strongest team, closely followed by Red Bull, while Ferrari remained fourth in single-lap performance but slipped into the midfield on race pace.
FP1 offered relatively limited evidence because six reserve drivers participated and a red flag interrupted proceedings. Lando Norris finished the session just 0.082 seconds ahead of Andrea Kimi Antonelli, but the more meaningful comparisons emerged during the afternoon session.
Brazilian GP FP1 and FP2 analysis: Interlagos gains almost one second
Conditions changed considerably between the two Friday practice sessions. During FP1, which began at 12:30 local time, track temperatures ranged from 39°C to 50°C, while the air temperature stood at 24°C.
By FP2 at 16:00, track temperatures had fallen to between 30°C and 40°C, with the air temperature dropping to 20°C and humidity approaching 90%. No significant rain arrived, although a few drops fell during the closing minutes of FP2. Intermittent rainfall nevertheless remained a possibility for the rest of the weekend.
The improvement in track conditions was immediately reflected in the lap times. The fastest lap fell from 1:11.717 in FP1 to 1:10.763 in FP2, representing a gain of 0.954 seconds.
A comparison of the best sector times recorded by the 16 drivers who participated in both sessions provides further insight. The median improvement was 0.15 seconds in sector one, 0.50 seconds in sector two and 0.11 seconds in sector three.
In other words, the middle sector accounted for approximately two-thirds of the overall improvement.
These figures are consistent with the characteristics of the resurfaced track. The second sector contains the circuit’s three slowest corners and substantial portions of the two resurfaced sections. Grip improves as more cars complete laps, cleaning the surface and depositing rubber.
The approximately ten-degree reduction in track temperature also contributed by helping tyre behaviour and traction. Consequently, comparisons between sessions must account for the substantial improvement in circuit conditions rather than attributing every reduction in lap time to the cars themselves.
Interlagos energy deployment: Where Mercedes and Ferrari lose electrical assistance
Energy management was one of the major technical questions heading into the Brazilian Grand Prix. The two principal areas where electrical energy is deployed heavily are the acceleration section from the exit of Junção towards the Senna S and the Reta Oposta back straight.
The fastest laps confirmed the importance of these sections and highlighted where the available electrical assistance begins to run out.
On the start-finish straight, speeds typically fell from approximately 326 km/h to 305 km/h before braking, even though drivers remained almost continuously on the throttle. Along the Reta Oposta, the corresponding reduction was from around 322 km/h to 309 km/h.
A third recurring pattern emerged between Turns 5 and 6, where cars exceeded 280 km/h before ceasing to accelerate. Because this section runs downhill, the behaviour could also be influenced by the gradient and aerodynamic drag.
Nevertheless, these three areas appeared repeatedly across almost all the cars, making them particularly important when assessing the influence of battery charge and energy deployment.
The effect of the slipstream was also concentrated in specific locations. At the end of the Reta Oposta, drivers following another car gained an average of 3.5 km/h. On the downhill approach towards Turn 6, the advantage increased slightly to 3.9 km/h.
By contrast, there was no meaningful slipstream advantage on the start-finish straight or immediately before Junção.
Interestingly, the places where following another car produced the greatest benefit coincided with areas where electrical assistance was declining. This suggests the slipstream may partially compensate for the reduction in available propulsion.
The findings reinforce the Reta Oposta’s importance as an overtaking opportunity. At the Senna S, where the data showed little slipstream benefit, a successful move is more likely to depend on energy availability and braking performance.
The relationship between speed and energy deployment can also be examined alongside the Formula 1 top-speed comparison data, although recorded speeds alone cannot establish power-unit performance.
Track limits at Interlagos: Turn 1 creates the biggest problem
Track limits also produced an interesting pattern during Friday’s running.
Across FP1 and FP2, 23 laps were deleted for track-limits violations. Of those, 17 occurred at Turn 1, three at Turn 12, and one each at Turns 4, 7 and 10.
In FP2 alone, nine of the ten deleted laps involved the Senna S. However, none represented a lost competitive lap time, because the infringements occurred during slow laps or returns to the pits.
For the moment, Turn 1 stands out as the principal risk area, particularly once drivers begin pushing to the limit in qualifying.
Pirelli tyre analysis: Soft leads, but Hard and Medium remain uncertain
Pirelli selected its three softest compounds for the Brazilian Grand Prix: C3 as the Hard, C4 as the Medium and C5 as the Soft.
Friday’s running showed a clear preference for the softest option. In FP2, the Soft accounted for 89 useful laps, compared with 48 on the Hard and 38 on the Medium.
Mercedes and McLaren divided their programmes between Soft and Hard tyres, while Ferrari and Red Bull focused on Soft and Medium compounds. Aston Martin was the only team to test all three. The fastest times recorded on each compound initially suggested substantial differences. The Soft produced a 1:10.763, the Hard a 1:11.824 and the Medium a 1:12.108, leaving the two harder compounds 1.06 and 1.35 seconds behind respectively.
Those gaps, however, do not accurately represent the compounds’ relative performance. The fastest Hard lap was recorded by Andrea Kimi Antonelli on his fifth lap of the session, while Max Verstappen set the quickest Medium time on his fourth lap. Both occurred before the circuit had reached its later level of grip.
With track evolution so pronounced, treating these lap times as direct tyre comparisons would be misleading.
The longer runs provided a different perspective. Lando Norris maintained a pace on the Hard compound comparable to Oscar Piastri’s performance on Soft tyres, suggesting that the harder option could prove particularly useful over longer race stints.
Tyre degradation also appeared relatively limited during the observed running.
Using the first eight laps of each long run and correcting for fuel consumption, the estimated degradation on Soft tyres was 0.13 seconds per lap during FP2. In FP1, when the circuit was approximately ten degrees hotter, the corresponding figure was 0.20 seconds per lap.
There were only three usable Medium and Hard sequences in FP2, too few to establish reliably whether one compound degraded more quickly than the other. However, neither showed a significant collapse in performance over the laps examined.
The longest observed tyre ages reached 14 laps on Hard, 16 on Medium and 23 on Soft. Consequently, Friday’s evidence does not yet establish how these compounds will perform across genuinely long race distances.
Graining, identified before the weekend as another potential risk associated with the resurfaced asphalt, did not appear to be a significant issue during the observed running.
These findings offer encouragement to teams considering longer stints, but the remaining practice session could provide further clarification. The circuit’s demands and the possible weather changes were also explored in our Brazilian Grand Prix tyre analysis covering Interlagos, softer compounds and the risk of rain.
Brazilian GP FP2 qualifying pace: Andrea Kimi Antonelli leads a closely matched field
Andrea Kimi Antonelli established the fastest lap of FP2 with a 1:10.763. His actual time matched his theoretical best lap, calculated by combining his fastest individual sectors, indicating that he had already extracted his full recorded sector potential.
Behind the Mercedes driver, the competition was extremely close.
Lando Norris finished 0.253 seconds behind, followed by Max Verstappen at 0.259, George Russell at 0.273 and Oscar Piastri at 0.321. That placed five drivers within approximately three tenths of a second, while the four leading teams were separated by 0.450 seconds.
Among the top ten, only Oscar Piastri and Charles Leclerc left notable time in their individual sectors. The McLaren driver had a theoretical improvement of 0.026 seconds, while the Ferrari driver had 0.127 seconds available.
However, even if both had combined their best sectors perfectly, neither would have moved ahead of the driver immediately above them: George Russell in the case of Oscar Piastri and Lewis Hamilton in the case of Charles Leclerc.
The FP2 classification therefore provides a reasonably accurate picture of single-lap performance without any major hidden improvement capable of dramatically changing the order. There was also a significant separation behind Ferrari. The gap between Lewis Hamilton’s fastest lap and that of Gabriel Bortoleto, the quickest driver outside the leading four teams, stood at 0.567 seconds.
FP1 had shown a broadly similar order. Lando Norris led Andrea Kimi Antonelli by 0.082 seconds, with Max Verstappen 0.236 behind and Lewis Hamilton 0.324 adrift. Gabriele Minì, driving for Alpine as a reserve, finished seventh, 0.852 seconds away from the fastest time.
Ferrari race pace raises alarm as Mercedes dominates Brazilian GP long runs
The most concerning figures for Ferrari emerged during the race simulations, where the gaps became substantially larger than those seen over a single lap.
Andrea Kimi Antonelli again provided the benchmark, producing an eight-lap sequence with a fuel-corrected median of 1:15.168.
Lando Norris was second, 0.374 seconds behind on Hard tyres, followed by George Russell at 0.392, Max Verstappen at 0.432 on Medium tyres, Oscar Piastri at 0.476 and Isack Hadjar at 0.535. The remaining drivers in that group used Soft tyres.
Only 0.16 seconds separated Lando Norris and Isack Hadjar, illustrating how closely matched the chasing group appeared during the longer runs. Three teams were represented in that group behind the leading Mercedes, with George Russell closer to Lando Norris than to his own team-mate.
When both drivers’ performances were combined, Mercedes’ team-level race-pace advantage was smaller than Andrea Kimi Antonelli’s individual margin suggested. The average advantage was 0.229 seconds over McLaren and 0.287 over Red Bull.
For Ferrari, however, the picture was considerably less encouraging. Charles Leclerc ranked only 11th on race pace, 0.887 seconds behind the benchmark while using Soft tyres. Lewis Hamilton was 13th, 1.086 seconds adrift on Medium tyres.
Both Ferrari drivers were behind Gabriel Bortoleto, Liam Lawson, Arvid Lindblad and Pierre Gasly in the long-run comparison. Fuel loads remain an important unknown. Earlier observations suggested that Ferrari’s Soft-tyre runs involved lighter fuel loads than those used by the two Mercedes drivers. If the Italian team was indeed running lighter, its underlying deficit could be greater than the published comparison indicates.
However, the unknown fuel quantities and differences in tyre compounds mean the practice figures cannot be treated as definitive predictions of Sunday’s race performance.
Across the field, estimated degradation ranged from 0.05 seconds per lap for Pierre Gasly to 0.22 for Gabriel Bortoleto. Andrea Kimi Antonelli recorded 0.13, while Oscar Piastri was at 0.08.
Liam Lawson produced the most consistent sequence, with a lap-time variation of 0.09 seconds. George Russell was the least consistent, although his result was heavily influenced by a single 1:17.0 lap that did not affect the median.
The observed practice performance can be explored further through the F1 Practice and Long-Run Analysis tool, which compares qualifying-style laps, stint pace, consistency and recorded session conditions.
Mercedes W17 advantage explained: Straights and energy deployment make the difference
To identify the origins of the performance gaps, the fastest lap from each team was divided into individual sections and compared against the average of the four leading constructors.
The gains and losses were then grouped by track section, corner type and sector.
The results suggest that each leading team achieves its performance in a different way, with some of the most important differences emerging outside the areas where they might initially be expected. Mercedes gained 0.24 seconds over the leading-group average, with its principal strengths concentrated on the straights, worth 0.21 seconds, and in the second sector, where it gained 0.19.
On the straights alone, the W17 gained 0.26 seconds over McLaren and 0.28 over Red Bull, enough to account for their overall single-lap deficits. Through the corners, Mercedes was broadly in line with its closest competitors.
Alpine and Williams, both using Mercedes power units, also gained relative to the leading-group average on the straights, by 0.19 and 0.09 seconds respectively. That pattern provides an indication that power-unit performance may contribute to the advantage, but it does not explain everything.
McLaren uses the same power unit yet was effectively level with the leading-group average in those sections, with a difference of just 0.04 seconds, despite recording the highest top speed of 321 km/h.
This suggests Mercedes’ advantage may lie more in acceleration and the way electrical energy is deployed than in maximum speed alone. The W17 also spent the greatest proportion of the lap with electrical assistance exhausted, at 20%, compared with 14% for McLaren.
One possible interpretation is that Mercedes deploys more energy at the most advantageous points of the lap, accepting a longer period without assistance once that energy has been used. This remains an interpretation of the observed performance rather than definitive proof of a particular deployment strategy.
McLaren and Red Bull show different strengths at Interlagos
McLaren gained time in areas where Mercedes did not. Its strongest performance came through medium-speed corners, where it gained 0.16 seconds against the leading-group average, while losing 0.12 seconds through high-speed corners.
On race pace, McLaren ranked second, 0.229 seconds behind Mercedes at team level. Lando Norris maintaining a comparable rhythm on Hard tyres to Oscar Piastri on Softs was particularly interesting. The harder compound remains a potential option for an extended race stint, making its Friday performance strategically relevant.
Red Bull followed closely, with a 0.259-second single-lap deficit and a 0.287-second team-level race-pace gap to Mercedes. Its greatest strength was through high-speed corners, where it gained 0.15 seconds. Medium-speed corners were more challenging, costing 0.17 seconds.
Red Bull also lost 0.13 seconds in sector one and recorded the lowest maximum speed among the four leading teams, at 310 km/h.
These contrasting characteristics underline how differently the leading cars approach the same circuit. Mercedes makes the greatest gains on the straights, McLaren excels through medium-speed corners, and Red Bull performs particularly well through faster sections.
Why Ferrari’s SF-26 falls from fourth to sixth on race pace
Ferrari was fourth in the single-lap team comparison, 0.450 seconds behind the benchmark, but dropped to sixth on race pace, 0.790 seconds behind Mercedes.
That placed the Scuderia behind Audi and Racing Bulls in the team-level long-run ranking, a particularly disappointing outcome given the separation between Ferrari and the midfield over a single lap.
Compared with the leading-group average, the SF-26 lost 0.14 seconds through slow corners and 0.10 seconds on the straights. Sector analysis revealed losses of 0.20 seconds in the third sector and 0.10 in the second, while the first sector was actually Ferrari’s strongest area, with a 0.09-second advantage over the leading-group average.
This creates an interesting contrast with Lewis Hamilton’s comments about instability in the opening two sectors. While the British driver experienced difficulties with the car’s behaviour in those sections, the single-lap timing data showed Ferrari performing particularly well in sector one.
One possible explanation is that the instability carries a greater performance cost over consecutive laps than during a single flying lap. That would be consistent with the team’s comparatively strong qualifying simulations and substantially weaker race pace.
However, the available practice data cannot establish that relationship conclusively. The wider picture behind the leading teams was also revealing. Audi was 1.017 seconds behind the single-lap benchmark, followed closely by Haas at 1.228, Alpine at 1.233 and Racing Bulls at 1.245.
Aston Martin, Williams and Cadillac were further back, with deficits of 1.775, 1.979 and 2.553 seconds respectively. The order changed significantly during the longer runs. Audi, at 0.57 seconds from Mercedes, and Racing Bulls, at 0.62, were both closer to the benchmark than Ferrari. Alpine followed just behind the Italian team, with a deficit of 0.94 seconds.
The three slowest constructors also faced different technical limitations.
Aston Martin lost 0.87 seconds on the straights against the leading-group average and registered the lowest maximum speed of the field at 296 km/h, 19 km/h slower than Mercedes.
Williams and Cadillac struggled primarily through slow corners, losing 1.09 and 1.01 seconds per lap respectively compared with the average of the leading four teams.
Andrea Kimi Antonelli dominates George Russell in Mercedes team-mate comparison
Looking at the individual driver comparisons provides further insight into the performance differences within each team.
Andrea Kimi Antonelli beat George Russell by 0.273 seconds on the fastest lap and 0.392 seconds on the long-run comparison. The decisive difference came in the second sector, where the Italian gained 0.312 seconds. George Russell was actually 0.049 seconds quicker through the opening sector.
The largest advantage emerged in the slower corners of sector two. At one of these corners, Andrea Kimi Antonelli maintained a speed of 87.5 km/h, compared with 83.5 km/h for his Mercedes team-mate. The figures reinforce the impression that the Italian driver’s Friday advantage was built through the technical middle section rather than being distributed evenly around the entire lap.
McLaren and Red Bull team-mate battles reveal contrasting performance
At McLaren, Lando Norris finished 0.068 seconds ahead of Oscar Piastri over one lap and 0.102 seconds faster in the long-run comparison.
However, the two drivers achieved their performance in different ways.
Oscar Piastri was 0.081 seconds faster through the first sector, gained 0.16 seconds on the straights and 0.07 through high-speed corners, but lost 0.24 seconds in the slower sections. The race-pace comparison also requires an important qualification because Lando Norris used Hard tyres while Oscar Piastri ran on Softs.
At Red Bull, Max Verstappen beat Isack Hadjar by 0.817 seconds over a single lap.
The second sector accounted for 0.599 seconds of that deficit, although the difference extended across several types of corner. Max Verstappen gained 0.41 seconds through slow corners, 0.40 on the straights and 0.28 through high-speed corners. Medium-speed corners were the only category where Isack Hadjar held an advantage, gaining 0.27 seconds.
Over longer runs, the gap fell dramatically to 0.103 seconds, with Max Verstappen using Medium tyres and Isack Hadjar on Softs.
Consequently, the single-lap classification paints a less favourable picture of the French driver’s Friday performance than the observed race-pace data.
Lewis Hamilton vs Charles Leclerc: Ferrari’s energy deficit raises questions
Within Ferrari, Lewis Hamilton finished 0.270 seconds ahead of Charles Leclerc over a single lap, but the Monegasque was approximately two tenths faster in the long-run comparison.
The difference in tyre compounds is essential to that assessment, with Charles Leclerc using Soft tyres and Lewis Hamilton running on Mediums during the longer sequences.
The detailed single-lap comparison revealed another particularly interesting difference. Charles Leclerc lost 0.44 seconds to his team-mate across the straight-line sections, despite both cars recording virtually identical maximum speeds: 312 km/h for the Monegasque and 311 km/h for the British driver.
Charles Leclerc also spent a greater proportion of the lap without electrical assistance, at 20%, compared with 17% for Lewis Hamilton. One possible interpretation is that Charles Leclerc exhausted his available electrical energy earlier, leaving him with less assistance during subsequent acceleration phases.
However, this remains a possible explanation rather than a confirmed conclusion about Ferrari’s deployment strategy. The Monegasque recovered some time through high-speed corners, where he was 0.14 seconds quicker than his team-mate.
The figures demonstrate that two Ferrari drivers using the same underlying car can experience noticeably different performance characteristics across the lap, particularly when electrical deployment and cornering performance are considered together.
Brazilian GP practice incidents: Audi red flag and Ferrari set-up work
Friday’s sessions also featured several incidents that affected the teams’ programmes.
FP1 was interrupted at 12:42 local time when the Audi driven by Freddie Slater stopped on track at the exit of the Senna S, triggering a red flag.
The session resumed seven minutes later, with just over 40 minutes remaining. The problem also had consequences for Audi’s afternoon running. Nico Hülkenberg, whose car had been driven by Freddie Slater during FP1, could not participate in FP2 because the team did not have enough time to repair the gearbox of the car carrying its special livery.
As a result, Audi conducted the second practice session with only Gabriel Bortoleto.
For Ferrari, much of Friday was devoted to set-up development. Dino Beganovic completed 11 laps in Charles Leclerc’s car during FP1 while the team worked on ride-height adjustments. When Charles Leclerc returned for FP2, further set-up work meant he was the last of the leading drivers to switch to Soft tyres.
There was also a misunderstanding involving the Ferrari driver and Rafael Câmara at Turn 15. The incident was reported as potential impeding, with race control referring the assessment until after the session.
Gabriel Bortoleto and Racing Bulls emerge as Brazilian GP surprises
Gabriel Bortoleto delivered one of the most convincing performances outside the leading four teams.
The Brazilian finished eighth in the single-lap comparison and seventh on race pace, ahead of both Ferrari drivers over the longer runs. His estimated degradation was the highest among the top ten at 0.22 seconds per lap, and the analysis was based on only one usable long-run sequence.
Nevertheless, his median pace placed him 0.12 seconds ahead of Charles Leclerc and 0.32 ahead of Lewis Hamilton. Pierre Gasly also performed significantly better over longer distances than his single-lap position suggested.
The Alpine driver ranked 14th over one lap but climbed to tenth on race pace, recording a median of 1:16.045 and the lowest estimated degradation among the top ten at 0.05 seconds per lap. A similar pattern emerged at Racing Bulls. Liam Lawson and Arvid Lindblad ranked eighth and ninth on long-run performance, with gaps of 0.78 and 0.84 seconds respectively to Andrea Kimi Antonelli.
That represented a strong improvement relative to Racing Bulls’ single-lap deficit of approximately 1.25 seconds.
These results underline why the fastest-lap classification alone offers an incomplete assessment of Friday’s competitive order.
What Ferrari and Mercedes’ Brazilian GP data means for qualifying
Friday’s running provided one clear conclusion and three important indications heading into Saturday.
The clearest finding concerns track evolution. Interlagos improved rapidly between the two practice sessions, making it essential to compare drivers, teams and tyre compounds under similar circuit conditions. The first indication concerns electrical energy deployment. Cars repeatedly exhausted their electrical assistance in three important areas, some of which also showed the greatest benefit from slipstreaming.
The second concerns tyre performance. None of the compounds demonstrated a major collapse during the observed stints, but the available sequences were not long enough to establish their performance over full race distances.
The third concerns competitive race pace. Mercedes’ advantage over a single lap becomes smaller when both drivers are considered together, even though Andrea Kimi Antonelli established a particularly impressive individual benchmark.
Ferrari, meanwhile, faces a more difficult question. Its fourth-place ranking over a single lap is significantly more encouraging than its sixth-place position on race pace, and the SF-26’s weaknesses in slow corners, straight-line performance and longer runs all require attention.
With rain still a possibility, the same combination of track grip, tyre behaviour and energy deployment is likely to influence qualifying. Ferrari must determine whether its Friday difficulties can be reduced through set-up changes, while Mercedes will seek to preserve the advantage that made the W17 the strongest car in the opening two practice sessions.
Leave a Reply