Ferrari melted away in the scorching heat of Spielberg. After Lewis Hamilton’s unexpected victory in Barcelona, expectations surrounding the Maranello team had risen considerably, with many believing the Scuderia had finally begun to unlock the potential of the SF-26. Instead, the Austrian Grand Prix produced a dramatic reversal of fortunes, as Ferrari suddenly slipped back to being only the fourth-fastest team on the grid behind Mercedes, Red Bull and McLaren. It was a weekend that exposed several underlying weaknesses at the same time and reminded everyone just how sensitive the competitive balance remains in Formula 1.
Seeing Charles Leclerc line up on the front row alongside pole-sitter George Russell briefly created the impression that Ferrari had recovered from the setup mistakes made during Friday’s practice sessions and had finally discovered the right direction to exploit the full potential of the SF-26.
Qualifying suggested that the team had made meaningful overnight progress, raising hopes that both Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton would be able to fight for a podium finish over race distance. However, as often happens in Formula 1, qualifying pace and race pace turned out to be two very different stories, especially on a circuit with unique characteristics like the Red Bull Ring.
Instead, Sunday’s race delivered a deeply disappointing outcome. Lewis Hamilton crossed the finish line in fifth place, finishing 26 seconds behind the race winner, while Charles Leclerc eventually came home eighth, 45 seconds adrift. The final result represented a much heavier defeat than most observers had anticipated before the race weekend. Ferrari had entered Austria with relatively cautious expectations despite its Barcelona success, but the scale of the performance deficit still came as an unpleasant surprise. Rather than building momentum after its previous victory, the Scuderia found itself asking serious questions once again.
So what exactly went wrong? The first major area of analysis naturally concerns the power unit. Ferrari introduced the updated 067/6 engine featuring its first ADUO-related modifications, but the expected gains were barely visible throughout the weekend. The revised turbocharged V6, equipped with an updated combustion chamber together with the latest Shell fuel specification, appeared to deliver only a marginal improvement on a circuit dominated by four long straights connected by only a handful of medium and slow-speed corners.
Austria is traditionally one of the tracks where engine performance becomes particularly important, making even relatively small horsepower differences much more noticeable than at other venues. Ferrari had consistently attempted to lower expectations before introducing the update, estimating that the first ADUO package would recover only between five and seven horsepower.
That figure represented roughly 20 percent of the previously estimated 25-horsepower deficit to the benchmark power unit. While any gain is welcome in Formula 1, such a modest increase was never expected to transform the Maranello team’s competitiveness overnight.
However, the impression reinforced by Audi Formula 1 project chief Mattia Binotto was that Mercedes, after securing approval for its own ADUO upgrade following the dispute involving Red Bull Powertrains Ford, had unlocked significantly more of its M17 E Performance engine’s true potential. According to this interpretation, Mercedes may have released another ten horsepower that had previously remained deliberately unused, immediately creating a much larger competitive advantage than Ferrari had anticipated. If that assessment proves accurate, Ferrari’s own engine improvement was effectively cancelled out before it even had an opportunity to make a meaningful difference.
The Brixworth-based manufacturer therefore demonstrated that it was fully capable of winning races even before receiving its ADUO upgrade, responding emphatically after the disappointment suffered in Barcelona. Mercedes also appeared to establish a clear advantage over the Red Bull-Ford power unit, which the FIA currently considers the benchmark engine in Formula 1. At Spielberg, the competitive hierarchy seemed to reveal performance differences that had previously been hidden or deliberately managed throughout the opening phase of the season. It was a reminder that engine manufacturers are constantly balancing outright performance with reliability and long-term development strategies.
George Russell’s driving data provided another fascinating technical insight into Mercedes’ advantage. In order to recharge the battery, George Russell could afford to downshift before Turns 1, 3 and 4 while still benefiting from the engine’s superior power output without sacrificing lap time. Normally, such energy management would come at a performance cost, but Mercedes appeared capable of compensating thanks to its extra horsepower. Telemetry also suggested that between Turns 5 and 6, as well as approaching Turn 9, George Russell’s engine was delivering power at around 2,000 rpm higher than Lewis Hamilton’s Ferrari. Those differences may appear relatively small on paper, but over an entire Grand Prix distance they translate into significant lap time advantages.
Power unit management also highlighted interesting differences within Ferrari itself. Charles Leclerc, for example, avoided using eighth gear between Turns 3 and 4 and again between Turns 8 and 9, illustrating increasingly noticeable differences in how the two Maranello drivers were forced to manage their cars throughout the race. Such variations can reflect differences in driving style, setup philosophy or even energy deployment strategies, but they also underline the complexity of extracting maximum performance from today’s hybrid power units.
While Ferrari’s engine deficit is now widely accepted as something unlikely to disappear before the end of the current Formula 1 season, the speed trap figures offered perhaps the clearest evidence of the problem. The Mercedes W17 reached an impressive 334.5 kilometers per hour, while the Ferrari managed only 319.3 kilometers per hour.
A difference of more than 15 kilometers per hour on the straights inevitably creates enormous pressure elsewhere around the lap. Yet the even bigger question remains why the Italian side struggled so dramatically during the race itself. Normally, the SF-26 tends to sacrifice a little performance over a single qualifying lap before becoming more competitive over a full race distance thanks to improved tyre management.
The answer begins with the specific layout of the Red Bull Ring. Apart from the slow Remus corner at Turn 3, Spielberg offers very few genuinely low-speed corners where the SF-26’s strongest characteristics could emerge. Instead, the circuit rewards aerodynamic efficiency, straight-line speed and stable performance through medium and high-speed sections. Those conditions prevented Ferrari from exploiting many of the strengths that had been visible only one week earlier in Barcelona.
As a consequence, the blown exhaust effect generated by Ferrari’s FTM system became less of an advantage and more of a disadvantage. Rather than increasing effective aerodynamic load, it generated additional drag and aerodynamic resistance. That extra drag made Ferrari even more vulnerable on the long straights, where its existing engine deficit was already placing both Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc at a disadvantage against their direct rivals.
The consequences quickly became visible over longer race stints. Both Ferrari drivers suffered significant overheating of the rear tyres, causing excessive wheelspin when accelerating out of corners. Ironically, one of Ferrari’s greatest strengths in Barcelona had been its impressive traction during corner exit. At Spielberg, however, those same strengths disappeared almost completely as rear tyre temperatures climbed beyond the optimal operating window. Once the tyres overheated, grip levels declined, making it increasingly difficult for both Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc to consistently extract competitive lap times.
Charles Leclerc himself admitted after the race that he had deliberately chosen a setup direction very similar to the configuration that had worked successfully for him at Spielberg during the previous season. Unfortunately, he explained that this approach never produced the expected results because the rear of the SF-26 remained unstable throughout the entire weekend. That instability prevented him from building confidence and made tyre degradation even worse over long race stints.
Charles Leclerc opted for an aggressively responsive front-end setup, which helped him maximise performance during qualifying but ultimately compromised the overall balance of the car during Sunday’s Grand Prix. Telemetry data also showed Lewis Hamilton frequently lifting off the throttle earlier before heavy braking zones in an effort to preserve the braking system over the race distance.
Lewis Hamilton consistently braked earlier than George Russell, while Charles Leclerc delayed his braking even further, attempting to recover time under braking before inevitably compromising corner exits. Although Ferrari has largely stopped discussing its brake-related difficulties publicly, doubts remain over whether every aspect of those issues has genuinely been resolved.
Ferrari travelled to Austria expecting to challenge Mercedes directly following the encouraging signs displayed in Spain. Instead, the Scuderia unexpectedly found itself fighting against McLaren, with both Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc forced into a three-stop strategy because of excessive tyre degradation. The race quickly became one of damage limitation rather than genuine podium contention.
Interestingly, the SF-26, which has generally struggled with the soft tyre compound throughout much of the season, appeared relatively more competitive when running on the soft tyres than on the harder compounds during the Austrian Grand Prix. That unusual behaviour further highlighted just how many unexpected variables affected Ferrari’s performance throughout the weekend. It was a combination of aerodynamic inefficiency, power unit limitations, setup compromises and tyre overheating that together created the disappointing final result.
Formula 1 seasons are often defined by how quickly teams recover from difficult weekends rather than by isolated victories or defeats. The Maranello team therefore has little time to dwell on what happened in Austria. The team must now analyse the extensive data collected at Spielberg, understand precisely why the SF-26 behaved so differently compared to Barcelona, and identify solutions before the next race.
Attention now turns to Silverstone, another circuit that, at least on paper, appears unlikely to suit Ferrari’s current package. The British Grand Prix traditionally rewards aerodynamic efficiency, high-speed stability and strong overall balance rather than outright mechanical grip alone. Those characteristics could once again expose some of the weaknesses that became apparent in Austria.
Nevertheless, Silverstone also represents Lewis Hamilton’s home race, and few drivers in Formula 1 history have enjoyed greater success at the legendary British circuit. Racing in front of his home crowd has often brought out the very best in Lewis Hamilton, and Ferrari will certainly hope that the combination of fresh analysis, improved setup choices and the additional motivation provided by the British fans can help the seven-time world champion lead the Scuderia back towards the front.
After such a disappointing weekend in Austria, Ferrari’s immediate objective will be to demonstrate that Spielberg was an exception rather than the beginning of a worrying new trend.
Leave a Reply