Charles Leclerc’s final stint at the Madrid Grand Prix remains one of the more puzzling elements of Ferrari’s weekend. After running for almost 50 laps on hard tyres, the Monegasque suddenly struggled for pace when he switched to a fresh set of softs, despite the softer compound theoretically offering more performance. Leclerc later referred to an unspecified problem that prevented him from pushing properly in the closing laps, while two different explanations have since emerged.
The mystery adds another layer to a weekend in which the SF-26’s unusually stiff behaviour was already evident. Ferrari had opted for a particularly rigid suspension configuration, creating advantages in some high-speed sections but also imposing compromises over kerbs, in traction zones and ultimately in the physical demands placed on the drivers.
Ferrari’s stiff SF-26 setup shaped the Madrid weekend
One striking example came after Turn 1, where Lewis Hamilton cut across the kerb and came close to Max Verstappen before the Ferrari bounced heavily as it came back down. Federico Albano, writing for FormulaPassion.it, described the suspension response as particularly pronounced and indicative of a very stiff SF-26 setup.
The difference was also visible in how Ferrari approached the chicanes compared with Kimi Antonelli. The Mercedes driver could attack and ride the kerbs aggressively, whereas Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton tended to go around them more cautiously to avoid destabilising the car’s platform. The wider compromises created by Ferrari’s stiff SF-26 setup at Madring became one of the technical themes of the weekend.
Hamilton’s braking problem was linked to a specific component within the braking system, although not to the brake-by-wire system according to this account. The broader mechanical picture, however, also highlighted just how demanding Ferrari’s chosen setup had become.
Why Ferrari chose stiffness instead of raising the SF-26
The first sector proved particularly difficult for the Ferrari, preventing the car from exploiting those sections of the lap as effectively as required. A strong front end and the rigid setup helped through the Monumental section, but Ferrari had to accept a price elsewhere, including in the final sector.
The car could carry more speed through faster corners, yet its response in low-speed traction was less immediate. After free practice, several teams raised their cars in an effort to protect the plank from excessive wear caused by the banking. Ferrari’s engineers instead chose to stiffen the suspension package.
That choice fits into the broader technical picture surrounding the SF-26: maintaining platform control through the demanding banked sections came with consequences when the car needed compliance over kerbs and effective traction at lower speeds.
Charles Leclerc’s fresh soft tyres failed to deliver late pace
The most intriguing issue emerged at the end of the race. Leclerc had completed almost 50 laps on the hard compound before moving onto fresh soft tyres, yet his pace deteriorated sharply rather than improving. The circumstances followed Ferrari’s unusually long opening stint, with more background on why the team kept him out available in our analysis of Charles Leclerc’s 48-lap hard-tyre run in Madrid.
Leclerc later mentioned a problem that he did not describe in detail, explaining only that he was unable to push properly during the final laps on the soft tyre.
Albano raised one possible explanation: unusually high tyre pressures. The theory would fit the pattern of Leclerc’s losses because his biggest difficulties appeared in traction and slower sections of the lap. However, this remains a hypothesis rather than a confirmed diagnosis. The contrast between the two compounds can also be placed in context through the ScuderiaFans F1 Tyre & Stint Analysis.
Power-steering feel emerges as another possible explanation
A different possibility has been reported by AutoRacer.it. According to that account, the significant deterioration in Leclerc’s SF-26 pace during the closing stages, despite the new soft tyres, could have been connected to the way he was experiencing the power steering.
After the race, Charles Leclerc described this year’s Ferrari as very “physical” to drive and requiring a significant level of effort. The subject has also emerged in previous seasons in relation to a component managed through an electro-hydraulic system.
This characteristic does not leave Leclerc feeling completely comfortable because the car can feel heavy to drive. Ferrari carried out a series of checks at Maranello, but no warning or specific anomaly was reportedly discovered.
The interpretation is therefore not centred on a confirmed mechanical failure. Instead, the physical demands of the car could have prevented Leclerc from extracting his best performance in the closing laps. The stiff suspension setup would only have increased that challenge by making the SF-26 more difficult over kerbs, affecting driveability and increasing the effort required behind the wheel.
That leaves Ferrari with two separate but potentially connected questions after Madrid. The first concerns the compromise created by an exceptionally rigid setup, which provided benefits in some faster sections but hurt the car elsewhere. The second is why Leclerc’s pace deteriorated so heavily on fresh soft tyres at the very end of the race. For now, the checks carried out at Maranello have not revealed an obvious fault, leaving the exact cause of the late-race slowdown unresolved.
Leave a Reply