Kimi Antonelli’s pole-position lap for the United States Grand Prix was an impressive show of strength, especially considering that the first five drivers on the grid were covered by just three tenths of a second. Yet the Mercedes driver’s advantage over Max Verstappen, who will start alongside him on the front row, was almost two tenths.
For Ferrari, however, the biggest question surrounds Charles Leclerc’s Q3. The Monegasque had already produced a Q2 lap that would have been enough for a front-row position, only for his performance to fall away during the decisive phase of qualifying. There is less mystery surrounding another recurring Ferrari theme: throughout the 2026 season, the SF-26 has appeared competitive from a chassis perspective while continuing to suffer a significant deficit when outright power and acceleration become decisive.
Kimi Antonelli’s pole was about more than raw power
It is therefore worth examining where Kimi Antonelli built his advantage over Max Verstappen, who appeared less than satisfied with his final qualifying session. The Italian driver’s performance cannot simply be reduced to the strength of the Mercedes power unit, because some of the decisive gains came in sections where grip and car behaviour were equally important.
During the acceleration phase after Turn 1, Kimi Antonelli’s W17 gains almost a tenth over Max Verstappen’s RB22. Through the high-speed snake, however, Max Verstappen fights back and moves ahead of Kimi Antonelli by approximately 0.050 seconds.
From that point, Max Verstappen begins to lose ground. Between Turns 7 and 11, Kimi Antonelli delivers the first decisive blow, building almost the entire two-tenth advantage that he will eventually carry to the finish line. Max Verstappen is noticeably less fluid through the final corners of the snake and is also slower to get back onto the throttle exiting Turn 9, while simultaneously appearing less able to exploit the available electrical power.
Max Verstappen might have expected to regain some of that deficit through the slower section between Turns 12 and 15, but this is where the lack of grip he complained about at the end of the session becomes particularly visible. The Dutch driver loses almost another tenth to Kimi Antonelli, who appears far more comfortable with his car through this sequence.
Kimi Antonelli then has enough available energy to accelerate more effectively than Max Verstappen through the horseshoe section between Turns 15 and 19. By the approach to Turn 20, his advantage has grown to approximately three and a half tenths of a second.
From there to the finish line, Kimi Antonelli appears less effective than Max Verstappen, most likely because of the way he chose to manage his remaining energy. He crosses the line at more than 10 km/h slower than the Red Bull driver and gives away almost half of the advantage he had accumulated earlier in the lap.
Ferrari’s straight-line deficit returns in Austin
For Ferrari, the telemetry highlights a familiar theme that has followed the team since the beginning of the season. From a chassis perspective, the SF-26 appears capable of matching its rivals and perhaps even exceeding them in some areas, but the figures from sections demanding outright acceleration remain discouraging. Ferrari had already shown the same contrast between strong cornering performance and weaker straight-line speed during its Austin FP1 analysis.
By the time Charles Leclerc reaches Turn 11, he has built a two-tenth advantage over Kimi Antonelli. Yet on the straight between Turns 11 and 12 alone, Charles Leclerc loses three tenths overall. The Ferrari is comprehensively beaten during acceleration and gives away more than 15 km/h in top speed.
A similar blow arrives during the acceleration phase between Turns 19 and 20. The recorded speed differences can also be explored through the F1 Top Speed Comparison, although straight-line speed is influenced by factors including aerodynamic configuration, energy deployment, slipstream and corner exit and should not be treated as a direct measurement of engine power.
At the same time, the telemetry reinforces just how strong Kimi Antonelli’s qualifying lap was. His pole position was not simply the product of Mercedes power, because the gap to Ferrari also increases through the slower section of the circuit. That suggests Charles Leclerc was not completely comfortable with the SF-26 during his final attempt.
Ferrari arrived in Austin with four significant aerodynamic changes involving the floor, plank, sidepod inlet area and diffuser as part of its latest SF-26 upgrade package. The qualifying telemetry again suggests that the car can produce highly competitive cornering performance, but its losses in the acceleration zones remain difficult to overcome.
The mystery of Charles Leclerc’s Q3: could he have started on the front row?
The more difficult question is what happened to Charles Leclerc during Q3. The Ferrari driver had recorded a 1:34.198 lap in Q2, a time that would have been enough to secure a front-row starting position.
Charles Leclerc had already demonstrated strong pace earlier in the Austin weekend, including during Ferrari’s competitive FP2 performance at COTA. Qualifying therefore represented another opportunity for Ferrari, making the loss of performance during the decisive Q3 attempts particularly significant.
There are two critical areas in Charles Leclerc’s final lap: the first between Turns 8 and 9 and the second at the exit of Turn 15, immediately before the horseshoe section leading towards Turn 19.
In the first case, Charles Leclerc appears to make an error, possibly as a result of losing grip. The time deficit increases even though he is simultaneously applying considerably more throttle than on his best lap. It may simply have been a driving mistake or a momentary loss of adhesion, but this is the first point at which Charles Leclerc fails to reproduce the performance of his earlier qualifying lap.
What happened at Turn 15 is harder to understand, and this represents the clearest spike in the lap-time deficit. Charles Leclerc approaches the corner at considerably lower speed, more than 10 km/h slower than before. There is no substantial difference in throttle percentage, but during the Q3 lap he is forced to select first gear slightly earlier.
These are probably the areas connected to the rear-locking problems Charles Leclerc complained about over the radio at the end of his in-lap. The issue would help explain why the Ferrari driver was unable to reproduce the performance he had shown during Q2 when the pressure increased in the final phase of qualifying.
It is also possible that track grip changed during the closing stages of the session and that Ferrari suffered more than some of its rivals. That is something Ferrari’s engineers will need to investigate carefully when analysing why the SF-26 behaved differently during the decisive Q3 run.
For Ferrari, it represents another missed opportunity with no immediately clear explanation. Charles Leclerc had already demonstrated enough pace to put the car on the front row, but the combination of the SF-26’s straight-line losses and the problems that emerged during his final qualifying attempt left Ferrari unable to convert that potential into the starting position that appeared within reach.
Leave a Reply