Ferrari continues to lose ground to Mercedes, and the problems facing the SF-26 now appear to extend far beyond the results seen on track. Power-unit performance and the management of electrical energy have become two of the most delicate areas in the comparison with Mercedes, with the Azerbaijan Grand Prix making those technical weaknesses particularly visible.
One figure discussed when analysing Ferrari’s situation after Baku was especially significant. Across the last five races, the Scuderia was said to have suffered an average gap of around 34 km/h to Mercedes in the single-lap speed reference discussed during the broadcast. It is a substantial figure that helps illustrate how complicated the technical situation surrounding the SF-26 has become.
The Ferrari deficit is not simply about top speed
The 34 km/h figure should not be interpreted simply as Ferrari being 34 km/h slower than Mercedes at the maximum speed point on a straight. The discussion instead centred on how effectively each car can manage and distribute electrical energy throughout an entire lap.
That distinction is fundamental to understanding one of Ferrari’s main technical problems in 2026. At Baku, the SF-26 did not struggle only along the circuit’s long straights. Difficulties were also evident through the more technical middle sector, where Ferrari reportedly had to recover a greater amount of electrical energy.
The consequence is a particularly damaging compromise. If the car needs to harvest more energy in one part of the lap, it can be forced to sacrifice performance there in order to arrive at the following high-speed section with enough electrical energy available. That helps explain why the wider picture exposed at Baku went beyond simple straight-line speed and contributed to questions over the SF-26’s position among Formula 1’s leading cars.
Ferrari’s harvesting problem affects the whole lap
One of the most important technical concepts behind the problem is harvesting. The power unit can recover energy during the lap and use it to recharge the battery. That stored electrical energy can later be released through deployment, when electrical power is transferred back to the wheels.
According to the analysis, Ferrari appears to be less efficient than Mercedes during the energy-recovery phase, and that creates a chain reaction across the lap. If the SF-26 must recover more energy, the car may have to alter its behaviour in certain sections rather than simply being driven at its maximum theoretical performance everywhere.
At Baku, the discussion suggested that this requirement contributed to Ferrari losing speed even in the middle sector. The issue therefore cannot be reduced to the amount of horsepower available from the internal-combustion engine. It concerns the way the entire power unit produces, recovers, stores and deploys energy over the lap.
The resulting straight-line performance can be examined alongside other cars through the ScuderiaFans F1 Top Speed Comparison, although the reported 34 km/h reference itself reflects the broader speed measurement discussed in the analysis rather than an official FIA maximum-speed classification.
Mercedes is extracting more from its complete package
The comparison with Mercedes makes Ferrari’s difficulty even more apparent. Performance does not come solely from the raw power of the engine. The power unit, aerodynamics, drag level, electrical energy management and the ability to exploit the car in different phases of the lap all contribute to the final result.
This is what makes Ferrari’s current situation particularly complicated. A car can have a strong aerodynamic foundation and good cornering potential, but if the propulsion system cannot provide the required energy at the decisive moments of the lap, part of the chassis potential remains unavailable.
A power-unit limitation can therefore become a problem for the entire car rather than remaining isolated to the engine. Mercedes appears to have integrated the different elements of its package more effectively, something also reflected in the wider analysis of the Mercedes W17’s 2026 performance.
Ferrari loses performance where the SF-26 should defend itself
The paradox for Maranello is that the SF-26 should theoretically have been able to exploit some of its own characteristics more effectively through Baku’s technical middle sector. Instead, Ferrari was also in difficulty there because the way electrical energy had to be managed influenced the behaviour of the car.
That means a power-unit problem eventually produces consequences for the chassis as well. When the car has to modify the way it is driven in order to recover electrical energy, the effect is not limited to straight-line performance. It can influence acceleration, corner-exit speed and the overall behaviour of the car across a complete lap.
This broader interaction between Ferrari’s technical weaknesses helps explain why the comparison with Mercedes is particularly difficult. The deficit is not located in one isolated area that can simply be corrected without affecting anything else.
Baku made Ferrari’s energy deficit especially visible
The Azerbaijan Grand Prix brought the issue into particularly sharp focus. Baku’s layout, with its long straights and repeated acceleration phases, places enormous importance on aerodynamic efficiency and electrical energy management.
Ferrari struggled precisely where speed, efficiency and available energy had to be combined. The concern was therefore not simply the final race result, but the underlying performance gap to Mercedes and the way the SF-26 behaved throughout the lap.
Baku has exposed several wider technical questions for Maranello, including challenges that extend into the team’s longer-term programme and the technical work Ferrari faces heading towards 2027.
Mercedes also moves ahead of Ferrari in engine-win history
There was also a symbolic statistic associated with the Baku weekend. With its victory in Azerbaijan, Mercedes moved ahead of Ferrari in the ranking of victories achieved as an engine manufacturer, reaching 252 wins according to the figure cited during the broadcast.
For Ferrari, a team whose history is inseparably linked with its engine tradition, the milestone carries considerable symbolic significance. It becomes even more notable because it arrives during a period when Ferrari’s power unit appears to be struggling against Mercedes.
The situation therefore combines two different themes. One is historical, with Mercedes reaching and surpassing Ferrari in the number of victories achieved as an engine manufacturer. The other concerns the present, where Mercedes appears to have found a more efficient technical interpretation of the new power-unit formula.
Ferrari’s technical problems go beyond Frédéric Vasseur
The technical picture also matters in the wider debate surrounding Ferrari’s future. Frédéric Vasseur has once again been at the centre of discussion about the direction of the Scuderia in recent weeks, while Christian Horner has openly discussed Ferrari as a potentially important scenario for his own future.
However, the problems highlighted by the SF-26 go beyond the identity of the team principal. Changing one senior figure does not automatically transform a power unit, an energy-recovery system or an entire technical project.
Ferrari first needs to understand why Mercedes is able to extract more performance from the complete system, particularly at circuits where energy efficiency and straight-line speed are decisive. The leadership discussion can therefore be considered separately from the technical problem itself.
The SF-26 needs development, a deeper understanding of its limitations and, above all, a technical direction capable of recovering the ground that has been lost. The wider uncertainty surrounding Ferrari’s internal situation has already been visible through the recent discussion around Ferrari’s communication and Christian Horner speculation, but solving the car’s limitations requires technical answers.
The reported 34 km/h Ferrari deficit is a warning sign
The most striking number remains the reported average difference of approximately 34 km/h to Mercedes in the single-lap reference discussed across the past five races.
Importantly, this is not an official FIA statistic presented as a maximum-speed ranking. It is a technical figure reported and discussed during the podcast. Its significance nevertheless fits into the broader picture that became visible in Baku: Ferrari struggled with both speed and energy management, while Mercedes demonstrated a greater ability to exploit its complete package.
That is the area Maranello needs to analyse. Having a competitive car in certain conditions is not enough if the team cannot make all of the available energy reach the wheels at the correct point of the lap. At Baku, Mercedes managed that process more effectively. Ferrari did not.
Ferrari must recover performance across the entire SF-26 project
The central question now concerns the future development of the SF-26 and Ferrari’s ability to address the weaknesses exposed during 2026. The work cannot focus purely on finding more engine power.
The challenge is more complex: Ferrari must improve the efficiency of the complete system, recover electrical energy more effectively, manage deployment better and allow the chassis to express its full potential.
That makes this an issue affecting the entire project. If the power unit forces the car to lose speed or change its behaviour simply to harvest enough energy, some of the work carried out on the aerodynamics and chassis can effectively be compromised.
This was one of the most concerning aspects to emerge from the Baku analysis. Ferrari does not merely need additional performance from one component; it needs the different areas of the SF-26 to work together more effectively.
Ferrari needs to understand why Mercedes is more efficient
The reported 34 km/h figure, regardless of the methodology used to construct that reference, should therefore be regarded as a warning sign rather than a complete explanation of Ferrari’s difficulties. On its own, it cannot describe the entire crisis, but it helps illustrate the scale of the technical challenge.
The SF-26 needs to recover ground above all in the integration between the power unit, battery, harvesting, deployment, aerodynamics and chassis. Mercedes, by comparison, appears to be making those elements work together more effectively.
That integration will play an important role in Ferrari’s remaining 2026 development. The question is no longer simply how much performance separates the Scuderia from Mercedes. The more important issue is how long Ferrari will need to identify exactly where that performance is being lost and how it can recover it without compromising another area of the car.
After Baku, the reported 34 km/h reference makes the scale of the challenge even clearer. For Maranello, finding those answers is becoming increasingly important.
Leave a Reply