The day after the Italian Grand Prix has a habit of producing absolute verdicts about Ferrari, although that tendency now seems to emerge after almost every race. When Lewis Hamilton won in Barcelona, many were convinced Ferrari finally had a car capable of fighting for the World Championship. After Monza, the opposite judgement has taken hold: the SF-26 is suddenly being treated as a failed project.
The reality is more nuanced. Apart from the upgrades introduced during the season, the car is fundamentally the same one. Ferrari has an excellent chassis but a Power Unit that remains significantly behind. Hours can be spent discussing whether the Maranello team lacks the right mentality, but when Lewis Hamilton or Charles Leclerc pressed the throttle as hard as possible and were still left behind on the straights, that was not a mentality problem. Monza simply exposed the SF-26 Power Unit deficit in the most unforgiving environment possible.
Ferrari’s SF-26 chassis is not the main problem exposed at Monza
Frédéric Vasseur arrived at Ferrari’s Gestione Sportiva relatively quietly and was widely portrayed almost as a fallback choice after several high-profile alternatives had turned the opportunity down. Yet the French team principal has overseen something approaching a partial revolution at Maranello.
One of his major decisions was to place his faith in Loïc Serra, somewhat out of necessity, by giving the French engineer the technical director role for the first time in his career. Looking at the chassis and suspension package of the SF-26, it is difficult to argue that this was a mistake. The car’s underlying mechanical platform is not where Ferrari’s biggest 2026 weakness lies.
The starting point on the engine side, by contrast, was dramatic. Several senior figures in Maranello’s Power Unit department have already lost their positions, with further changes expected as Ferrari continues a restructuring that began during the winter. That process started when problems with the internal combustion element became clearly apparent at the factory.
There is no escaping the seriousness of Ferrari getting its original engine concept so badly wrong at the beginning of a regulatory era heavily centred on the Power Unit. That is a major failure for the Maranello team. At the same time, the changes taking place behind the scenes show that Ferrari is fully aware of the problem and is attempting to find solutions within the engine department rather than simply ignoring the weakness.
Ferrari ADUO 2 worked at Monza, but it could not perform miracles
The much-discussed ADUO 2 specification arrived at Monza and did produce gains. Ferrari’s ADUO 2 development therefore delivered something tangible, but miracles do not exist in engineering. The gap to Mercedes remained, and a circuit as dependent on sustained acceleration and straight-line performance as Monza was always going to expose it.
After qualifying, Charles Leclerc had already warned: “Tomorrow will be a problem on the straights.” There was an almost ironic quality to that assessment given the very nature of Monza.
It is also the same circuit where Charles Leclerc won in 2019 with a Ferrari powered by an exceptionally strong engine. Another historical comparison came in 2014, another season in which Ferrari had got its Power Unit wrong: Kimi Räikkönen finished ninth at Monza, around one minute behind race winner Lewis Hamilton in the Mercedes.
This time, Lewis Hamilton finished 24 seconds behind Andrea Kimi Antonelli. That was certainly too large a deficit, but considering the technical premises entering the weekend, it was not entirely surprising. Ferrari had already seen indications of where the SF-26 was strong and weak during the weekend, including its performance through Monza’s chicanes and its energy deployment characteristics.
Lewis Hamilton could have been closer to fourth with a different strategy
Once Charles Leclerc was out of the race, the remaining Ferrari spent much of the Grand Prix fighting Oscar Piastri’s McLaren and eventually finished only around five seconds behind the two papaya cars. Lewis Hamilton’s strategy, however, was fundamentally questionable.
Running the Medium tyre for the entire race was certainly not the ideal option, and the seven-time World Champion complained extensively about it over the radio. One obvious question is why Ferrari did not bring Lewis Hamilton into the pits during the Virtual Safety Car period to change tyres.
The impression is that Ferrari’s pit wall feared Lewis Hamilton would struggle to complete the overtakes required afterwards because of the SF-26’s lack of top speed. The deficit under the engine cover therefore continues to produce a chain reaction that affects decisions elsewhere, something Ferrari had already experienced at Zandvoort.
That strategic situation arguably accounted for at least the roughly five-second advantage with which the two McLarens finished ahead of Lewis Hamilton’s SF-26. It suggests that the overall performance level of the Ferrari could have been somewhere around the McLaren cars and therefore close to the foot of the podium.
That would still not have represented a particularly good result, but neither would it have been drastically removed from the realistic expectations Ferrari carried into the weekend. The team had already been cautious about the impact of its engine and floor developments ahead of the Italian Grand Prix.
More broadly, Monza has limited value when judging the complete technical quality of a Formula 1 car. In the past, teams regularly brought packages designed specifically for this circuit because its demands are so unusual. Its value as an engine benchmark, however, is far greater. In that respect, the weekend simply reinforced the argument that has followed the SF-26 from the beginning of the season: its biggest weakness is primarily under the engine cover.
Where Frédéric Vasseur is struggling: Ferrari’s driver management
There is another area, however, where Frédéric Vasseur is genuinely falling short, and it concerns the management of Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc. This is not only a debate about formal team orders or whether Ferrari should nominate a permanent number one driver.
The widespread assumption is that Ferrari must eventually choose a clear team leader, something the French team principal appears determined not to do. Whether that position reflects a deliberate philosophy, personal considerations or simply the difficulty of being caught between two extremely important drivers is impossible to know.
Lewis Hamilton is a seven-time World Champion and an enormous public presence for any team to manage. Charles Leclerc, meanwhile, is in his eighth season with Ferrari and has also committed his future to the team through a long-term renewal. Making a clear choice between the two was never going to be straightforward.
Until now, Ferrari has relied almost completely on the professionalism of its drivers. What happened on track at Monza, followed by Lewis Hamilton’s strong comments after the race, suggested that this approach is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain.
In our view, Charles Leclerc made a mistake when he forced Lewis Hamilton onto the gravel at the Prima Variante. Leaving aside the precise interpretation of the sporting regulations, Ferrari at Monza is not quite like any other team at any other race. The responsibility attached to representing the Scuderia in front of the Tifosi gives the Italian Grand Prix a unique significance, something reflected in the extraordinary relationship between Ferrari and its home support at Monza.
Lewis Hamilton entered the opening corner aggressively but did not force Charles Leclerc off the circuit. The Monegasque could have taken a tighter line and handled the fight more cleanly, particularly given the responsibility of driving a Ferrari at its home Grand Prix.
Hamilton and Leclerc need rules of engagement, not just professionalism
Lewis Hamilton’s verbal attack after the race, directed squarely at Frédéric Vasseur, can be interpreted as an attempt by the British driver to secure a level of priority within Ferrari that he believes he deserves. The Ferrari team principal, rightly or wrongly, does not appear prepared to grant it. At the same time, Charles Leclerc’s mistakes during the season have made that internal argument easier for his team-mate to pursue.
It is perfectly possible to agree with Lewis Hamilton’s position or with Frédéric Vasseur’s refusal to establish a hierarchy. But one element is clearly missing: a minimum level of genuine team cohesion.
Formula 1 is an intensely competitive environment and every driver’s first opponent is inevitably the person in the other car. Yet Ferrari, particularly at Monza, is perhaps the one team capable of creating an unusually strong sense of belonging and collaboration even between two drivers fighting each other.
The complete absence of publicly defined rules of engagement meant that the problem surfaced immediately at the start. Lewis Hamilton attacked Charles Leclerc down the inside, and the Monegasque responded by forcing his team-mate onto the gravel at the opening corner. Whatever that represented, it was certainly not an image of cohesion or collective spirit.
Nor is this situation entirely new or something that began under Frédéric Vasseur. Maurizio Arrivabene even managed to make a driver as famously composed as Kimi Räikkönen lose his temper during his period in charge, underlining how uncomfortable Ferrari’s management of its drivers has been on several occasions over the years.
Charles Leclerc’s Monza crash exposed another all-or-nothing weekend
That brings the discussion to Charles Leclerc’s major mistake at the Parabolica. The huge impact with the barriers was a clear sign that the Monegasque was experiencing another all-or-nothing weekend and was struggling to accept the number of overtakes he was suffering.
There was an important technical factor behind those early-race difficulties. During the opening laps, Ferrari was struggling with energy availability. The SF-26 could match its rivals by using boost and/or overtake mode, but doing so left the car more vulnerable towards the end of the lap, when there was no longer enough available energy to defend effectively against attacks.
Ferrari needed several laps for the field and energy situation to stabilise. Charles Leclerc, however, was desperately trying to remain attached to the leading group in the hope of preserving some possibility of fighting for victory. While off the ideal racing line, he ultimately asked too much from the throttle and lost the rear of the car.
The tendency to push beyond the limits of the machinery is a long-standing issue for Charles Leclerc. It undoubtedly has roots in the frustration of spending so many years without having a car genuinely capable of consistently fighting at the highest level. That context can help explain the instinct, but it does not justify throwing away points in that manner.
There are also consequences beyond the championship score. A major accident creates costs under Formula 1’s budget cap and can potentially damage Power Unit components. Fortunately, despite the extreme violence of the impact, Charles Leclerc escaped without physical consequences. The latest developments surrounding the Monegasque can also be followed through our Charles Leclerc coverage.
Mercedes and Andrea Kimi Antonelli look out of reach, but Ferrari still has targets
So what remains for Ferrari after Monza? The technical picture is not entirely bleak. The SF-26 still appears to have an excellent chassis, while the improved engine should be less heavily exposed at circuits that do not place such extreme emphasis on straight-line performance. On those tracks, Ferrari can still reasonably expect to fight for podiums and victories, with the wider development picture continuing to evolve across the team’s technical programme.
The championship fight, however, now appears effectively closed, and not merely for Ferrari. Andrea Kimi Antonelli and Mercedes look extremely difficult to catch. The more realistic battle for the remainder of the season is therefore likely to be between Ferrari and McLaren for second place in the Constructors’ Championship.
Monza exposed Ferrari’s problems more brutally than most circuits could. The Power Unit remains the largest technical obstacle, and the handling of Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc now requires far more clarity. But reducing the entire SF-26 to a failed project on the basis of one of the most engine-sensitive races of the season would be too easy. Ferrari has serious problems to solve, but they are not all the same problem.
Leave a Reply