Mercedes secured the 2026 Formula 1 Constructors’ Championship, while Ferrari left the Brazilian Grand Prix with another disappointing performance. The missed opportunity to secure a one-two finish in Mexico now looks even more costly after a weekend at Interlagos in which victory was never within reach. Despite introducing fresh engines, Ferrari could not overcome the SF-26’s persistent weaknesses in power delivery, aerodynamic efficiency and tyre performance.
The contrast with Mexico was particularly frustrating. Just one week earlier, Ferrari had a realistic opportunity to win, but the situation was completely different in Brazil. The engine changes were not enough to address a performance deficit involving several interconnected areas of the car, leaving Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc unable to challenge at the front.
Ferrari’s new engines fail to solve SF-26 performance problems in Brazil
Lewis Hamilton’s start initially suggested that Ferrari might enjoy a more competitive race. The seven-time world champion found space, gained positions and briefly appeared capable of producing a strong recovery. However, that early momentum quickly disappeared as the SF-26’s limitations became increasingly apparent.
There were also close moments between Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc, although the two Ferrari drivers handled their encounters with mutual respect. Both left sufficient room for the other, avoiding further complications during an already difficult race for the Maranello team.
The main problem was the scale of Ferrari’s performance deficit. With the Macarena rear wing closed, the SF-26 was losing approximately seven tenths of a second per lap on the straights. At its worst, the car surrendered another seven tenths through the corners.
These losses reflected two different aspects of the same underlying difficulty. On the straights, Ferrari was compromised by its power deficit and aerodynamic drag. In the slower corners, the team struggled to extract the necessary performance from its tyres.
The situation highlighted why replacing the engines could not provide a complete solution. Ferrari’s continuing Formula 1 power unit deficit was only one element of a wider performance problem affecting the SF-26.
Why Ferrari’s aerodynamic configuration made the Interlagos deficit worse
In principle, the SF-26 chassis should not be fundamentally uncompetitive in wet conditions. However, Ferrari’s maximum-downforce configuration produces slightly more aerodynamic drag than those of its rivals, while the available engine power is insufficient to compensate fully for that disadvantage.
The problem becomes particularly significant during wet races, when the active aerodynamics system is locked into its high-downforce configuration. Under those conditions, Ferrari loses the opportunity to reduce drag along the straights, making its existing efficiency deficit even more damaging.
A fresh engine could not eliminate this limitation because the problem extended beyond the power unit itself. Ferrari needed to compensate through cornering performance, but that advantage also proved difficult to achieve at Interlagos.
By lap 15, Max Verstappen had already established a gap of approximately 20 seconds over both Ferrari drivers. That margin was particularly revealing because Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc had approached tyre management in contrasting ways.
Despite those differences, neither driver could prevent the gap from growing. The scale of the deficit therefore made it difficult to attribute Ferrari’s problems simply to individual driving styles or tyre-management decisions.
The extent of the straight-line losses and the differences between the various phases of the lap also underline the importance of examining the complete performance picture. Ferrari’s recorded speeds and those of its rivals can be explored through the F1 Top Speed Comparison, although maximum speed alone cannot establish the size of an engine power deficit.
Ferrari’s tyre pressure problems expose another SF-26 weakness
Tyre pressures represented another important part of Ferrari’s disappointing Brazilian Grand Prix. The situation brought back memories of the team’s difficulties at the 2024 Canadian Grand Prix, although placing all the responsibility on the engineers working at the circuit would be an oversimplification.
The focus should not necessarily be on the initial tyre pressure settings. Ferrari was operating at the minimum permitted pressures under the prescribed limits, in a similar position to the other teams.
Greater attention should instead be paid to the design of the wheel assemblies, which can produce significant variations in tyre performance under particular conditions. This characteristic can make it more difficult to maintain the tyres within their ideal operating window, especially when the circuit conditions are constantly changing.
At Interlagos, Ferrari’s difficulties also exposed a limitation of the SF-26’s underlying concept. In certain circumstances, the car appears to have a particularly narrow operating window, making it difficult to identify adjustments capable of delivering a meaningful improvement.
The consequences were evident in the contrasting performances of Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc. Even though the drivers managed their tyres differently, both struggled to extract consistent performance from the car.
The broader issue of Ferrari’s tyre pressure difficulties during the Brazilian Grand Prix illustrates how an initially promising level of grip could disappear as the race developed.
The grid penalty also complicated Ferrari’s approach to the weekend. Although it does not explain the full performance deficit, it cannot have helped the team’s preparations and should be considered when assessing the decisions made during the event.
These circumstances provide some mitigation for the personnel involved, but they do not remove the need to understand why Ferrari struggled so badly in conditions where the SF-26 should have been capable of delivering more competitive performance.
Lewis Hamilton’s pit-stop decision raises further questions
From a strategic perspective, Ferrari had limited opportunities to change the outcome of the race. With such a substantial underlying performance deficit, a different sequence of pit stops was unlikely to transform the team’s competitiveness.
Nevertheless, another unclear episode involving Lewis Hamilton raised questions about communication between the driver and the Ferrari pit wall. The British driver did not enter the pits despite being called in by the team.
It remains uncertain whether Lewis Hamilton disagreed with the team’s assessment and wanted to continue demonstrating some of the car’s weaknesses before stopping. Ferrari team principal Fred Vasseur subsequently offered an interpretation of the situation that appeared generous compared with what had unfolded on track.
The episode added to the concerns surrounding Ferrari’s race execution, although the underlying technical limitations were considerably more significant than any individual strategic decision.
Apart from a handful of promising moments, neither Lewis Hamilton nor Charles Leclerc was able to demonstrate the full potential of the Ferrari package.
Ferrari faces a deeper technical challenge after Mercedes title triumph
While Mercedes celebrates its Constructors’ Championship success, Ferrari must confront problems that extend well beyond the execution of a single Grand Prix weekend.
The Brazilian Grand Prix demonstrated that the SF-26’s difficulties cannot be explained by engine performance alone. Aerodynamic efficiency, tyre behaviour and the sensitivity of the car’s operating window all contributed to a disappointing result.
Improving tyre management remains essential, but Ferrari also needs a car that is less vulnerable to changing conditions. When the available operating window becomes particularly narrow, even relatively small variations can have a significant effect on overall performance.
For Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc, the frustration is that replacing the engines did not address those wider limitations. Ferrari’s challenge is therefore not simply to recover lost power, but to develop a more consistent and efficient package capable of delivering competitive performance across different circuit conditions.
Interlagos ultimately exposed an uncomfortable reality for Maranello: fresh components cannot compensate for every weakness in a Formula 1 car, particularly when several performance limitations appear at the same time.
Leave a Reply