Gary Anderson questions Ferrari’s direction with the SF-26 car

Ferrari face growing scrutiny over 2026 F1 car as Gary Anderson questions key design direction
Ferrari are approaching the 2026 Formula 1 season under intense pressure to deliver a competitive car, but respected technical analyst Gary Anderson has already expressed concerns based on rumours circulating ahead of pre-season testing. After a deeply disappointing 2025 campaign, expectations in Maranello could scarcely be higher.

The 2025 season proved to be one Ferrari will be eager to forget. The Scuderia failed to win a single Grand Prix, a stark outcome for a team that entered the year with championship ambitions. Charles Leclerc was responsible for all seven of Ferrari’s podium finishes, while Lewis Hamilton’s most notable performances came almost exclusively during Sprint Race weekends. Over a full race distance, Ferrari consistently lacked the tools to challenge the front-running teams.

There have, however, been early positives. Ferrari have already received encouraging feedback regarding their 2026 power unit after Cadillac completed an initial shakedown at Silverstone using Ferrari engines. While that data has helped ease concerns surrounding reliability and baseline performance, Anderson believes the power unit will only represent a small part of the overall competitiveness of the SF-26.

Instead, attention is now turning to an often underappreciated but critical area of car performance: suspension architecture. According to reports from MARCA, Ferrari are believed to have altered their front suspension concept for 2026, moving away from a pull-rod layout in favour of a push-rod configuration. That potential change has raised alarm bells for Anderson, particularly given Ferrari’s history of frequent concept shifts.

Gary Anderson raises concerns over Ferrari’s suspension philosophy for 2026

Speaking in a technical analysis context on The Race F1 Podcast, Anderson outlined why suspension direction is such a fundamental decision under a new regulatory framework. He explained that choosing between pull-rod and push-rod layouts is not simply a matter of preference, but one that affects packaging, aerodynamic consistency, centre of gravity, and long-term development potential.

Anderson indicated that, if he were responsible for the decision, he would lean towards retaining a pull-rod solution at the front of the car. While more complex to package due to its placement lower within the chassis, he believes a well-executed pull-rod design can be integrated effectively around the pedal box and chassis structure, offering long-term aerodynamic and mechanical advantages.

He acknowledged that many teams are attracted to push-rod suspension because it is easier to package and simpler to set up initially. However, Anderson cautioned that such short-term convenience often comes at the cost of deeper understanding and optimisation. He noted that Cadillac’s decision to commit to a pull-rod layout was encouraging, as it demonstrated a willingness to commit to a concept and learn from it rather than constantly chasing alternatives.

The core of Anderson’s concern lies in Ferrari’s apparent tendency to oscillate between philosophies. If Ferrari have indeed switched from pull-rod to push-rod once again, Anderson believes they may be repeating a cycle they have gone through multiple times over the past two decades. In his view, repeatedly changing fundamental layouts can be a sign of internal confusion, preventing teams from ever fully extracting maximum performance from any one concept.

Rather than resetting direction yet again, Anderson suggests that Ferrari would benefit from committing to a functional layout and refining it relentlessly. Constantly altering suspension philosophy, particularly under a major regulation change, risks losing valuable time and understanding—something Ferrari can ill afford in a tightly packed midfield-to-front battle.

Loïc Serra faces major challenge shaping Ferrari’s 2026 F1 car

Responsibility for Ferrari’s 2026 design now largely rests with Loïc Serra following the departure of Enrico Cardile to Aston Martin. Serra, who previously worked closely with Lewis Hamilton during his time at Mercedes, was not originally responsible for the SF-25 but did play a role in overseeing in-season developments.
The challenge for Serra is arguably even greater in 2026. With a full regulatory reset, he cannot rely on incremental improvements to an existing concept. Unlike previous seasons, there is no baseline car from which to evolve, making every early architectural decision—such as suspension layout—even more critical.
There have been suggestions within the paddock that Serra may be keen to emulate McLaren’s recent design philosophy. While he will have no insight into what McLaren’s 2026 car actually looks like, the bold and decisive approach taken by figures such as Rob Marshall and Peter Prodromou has clearly paid dividends. McLaren’s willingness to commit to brave concepts has been a key factor in their return to championship-winning form.

That philosophy aligns closely with Anderson’s broader point. Success, particularly under new regulations, often comes from committing early, accepting short-term pain, and optimising relentlessly rather than constantly reacting to competitors. Ferrari’s historical tendency to chase perceived performance gains through radical direction changes could once again prove costly.

The truth will only become clear once the SF-26 runs on track in Bahrain. At that point, fans and analysts alike will discover whether Ferrari have chosen continuity and optimisation—or whether Gary Anderson’s fears of another period of confusion are about to be realised.