The 2026 Monaco Grand Prix left Ferrari with more questions than answers. Lewis Hamilton’s second-place finish was not enough to overshadow Charles Leclerc’s accident, which saw the Monegasque driver crash into the barriers after a weekend marked by persistent braking issues and unusually strong comments made in the immediate aftermath.
Charles Leclerc described the situation as “impossible” and almost dangerous, triggering a debate that also involved Brembo, which publicly defended its work while insisting that any conclusions should only be drawn after a full analysis of the available data.
In an exclusive interview with Fanpage.it, engineer Luigi Mazzola, one of the key figures from Ferrari’s golden era and a long-time observer of both the technical and human dynamics of Formula 1, examined the issue from a broader perspective. According to Mazzola, the brake problem was not limited to the accident itself but had been affecting Charles Leclerc throughout the entire weekend, gradually undermining the driver’s confidence.
His analysis extended beyond Monaco, touching on the Ferrari SF-26, the contrast between Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton, the strength of Mercedes and Kimi Antonelli, and a Ferrari team that, in his view, cannot be described as a failure but appears to have reached a technical plateau. The car is competitive and arguably the second-best package on the grid, but it still lacks the breakthrough needed to consistently challenge for victories.
“The problem was visible throughout the weekend”
Charles Leclerc described the braking situation in Monaco as impossible and almost dangerous. From a technical standpoint, how do you interpret what happened?
“We need to look at the entire picture. Throughout the weekend Charles Leclerc struggled. There were several lock-ups, moments of uncertainty, and he simply did not feel connected to the car. He lacked confidence in the behaviour of the vehicle.
“Lewis Hamilton, on the other hand, looked more comfortable, more consistent and happier with the way the car was behaving. That is the first important aspect.”
So the issue did not begin with the accident itself?
“No. At the corner where Charles Leclerc hit the wall there was certainly an asphalt-related issue. I saw an Instagram post where Sergio Perez had already pointed out that there was a problem in that area and warned that sooner or later something could happen there.
“The fact that both Lance Stroll and Charles Leclerc had very similar accidents makes me think that the track surface played a role. Then, of course, once you move slightly off-line you pick up all the dirt and debris on the outside of the racing line, and the car suffers immediately. The front end suffers the most because you lose front grip.
“The braking zone there is not especially demanding, particularly because it happened under Safety Car conditions. I do not believe there was a genuine brake failure at that specific moment. In my opinion, the brake issue was much more evident during Friday and Saturday, and then it exploded into the spotlight with the accident.
“I do not think the braking issue accounted for more than five percent of what happened there. At the same time, I do not think it was entirely the driver’s fault either.”
So Charles Leclerc bears some responsibility, but he should not take all the blame?
“Certainly Charles Leclerc and Lance Stroll were the drivers involved, so some responsibility naturally falls on them. However, there were circumstances that help explain the mistake.
“Braking has always been one of Ferrari’s strengths. In the past, Brembo consistently delivered exceptional work with both the calipers and the overall braking systems. What has happened this year, I do not know. I do not remember this being a problem last season. Evidently, some of the solutions introduced have created a degree of uncertainty.”
“A Formula 1 driver cannot afford to lose confidence in the brakes”
How significant is it for a driver to lose confidence under braking?
“The brakes are absolutely fundamental for a Formula 1 driver. They give you everything. Braking is the result of braking power, tyre grip, aerodynamic load and brake balance between the front and rear of the car. It is a synthesis of the entire performance package.
“Braking is enormously important. If a driver does not trust the brakes, he is heavily limited.
“In Monaco, more than Lewis Hamilton’s excellent performance, what stood out to me was the lack of performance caused by Charles Leclerc’s uncertainty over the brakes. That was the key factor. Then everything came to a head in the race with the accident and Charles Leclerc vented his frustration by saying: ‘I have this problem.’
“I believe it is a problem that can be solved relatively easily. First of all, because one of the drivers does not seem to be experiencing it, which suggests he is using a different solution. Secondly, because we are talking about Brembo and Ferrari engineers. I imagine they already have a clear idea of what needs to be done before the next Grand Prix.”
Lewis Hamilton finished second using a different configuration. If a solution already existed, why did Charles Leclerc not adopt it sooner?
“That depends entirely on the driver’s choice. The team does not impose these decisions.
“This is one of the consequences of the lack of testing. Imagine if teams still had extensive testing programmes. They would have completed thousands of kilometres at a track like Fiorano, where braking performance is critical, evaluating different solutions and selecting the best one.
“Now they are forced to make those evaluations during race weekends. Put yourself in the position of a driver who has never raced with a different brake specification. To switch just before Monaco, your home race and a circuit where Ferrari was expected to fight for victory, might have seemed risky.
“Meanwhile, Lewis Hamilton may have been more familiar with that configuration. From what I have been told, he had already raced with it in two previous Grands Prix, which may have influenced the outcome.”
Mercedes proved its superiority in Monaco
Many expected Ferrari to be extremely competitive in Monaco, yet Mercedes won again. Was that a one-off result or confirmation of a broader trend?
“This was the sixth Grand Prix of the season and Mercedes has demonstrated its superiority consistently across all six races.
“Monaco is a unique circuit. Before the race, many of us believed Mercedes enjoyed a significant horsepower advantage, perhaps even thirty horsepower more than Ferrari. Engine power matters everywhere, but in Monaco it is less decisive than at most other tracks.”
So what made the difference?
“In Monaco you need downforce, balance and a car that is not plagued by understeer. You need mechanical grip and aerodynamic grip that allow the driver to attack the corners.
“What did we learn? Mercedes, with Kimi Antonelli, demonstrated that it has a truly outstanding car. It is not just about the engine. The car has excellent aerodynamics, excellent balance, strong mechanical grip and an outstanding overall package.
“This proved that the team’s success is not solely linked to its power unit, despite all the controversy surrounding the Mercedes engine earlier in the season.
“The quality of the car is undeniable. Kimi Antonelli extracted everything from it. The car clearly inspired confidence and allowed him to push at the limit. He never looked like he was managing the car or protecting it.
“Ferrari is still a good car. It is not a bad car at all. It delivers good performance. But Ferrari appears to be lacking a little in engine power, a little in aerodynamic efficiency and a little in mechanical grip.”
“Kimi Antonelli has everything needed to become a champion”
Kimi Antonelli won in Monaco, managed a standing restart after the red flag and kept Lewis Hamilton behind him. Is he already ready for a championship fight?
“A superior car certainly helps. Every world champion in history sought the best car available. Michael Schumacher, Ayrton Senna, Alain Prost, Kimi Raikkonen, Sebastian Vettel and Fernando Alonso all benefited from strong machinery.
“I still believe Formula 1 success is approximately 70% car and 30% driver. Within that 30%, however, there are major differences. Champions maximise every part of that percentage, while other drivers only extract part of it.”
But five consecutive victories at the age of 19 is extraordinary.
“Absolutely. Winning five Grands Prix in a row proves it is not just the car. There may be elements of luck at times, and some races may have unfolded in his favour, but Monaco showcased his true quality.
“To officially call him a champion, we need to see him win a world championship. Then we can use that label. But there is no question that he possesses all the qualities required to get there.
“He managed the race perfectly, handled every challenge correctly and avoided mistakes. Of course, he has made some mistakes during the season, but that is normal.
“What we are witnessing is something special. In my experience, I do not remember a 19-year-old arriving in Formula 1 and winning five consecutive races. For that alone, he deserves enormous respect and gives us hope that he can become a truly great champion.”
Surprise over Red Bull Ford and the ADUO findings
When asked about reports suggesting that Red Bull Ford, rather than Mercedes, emerged as the benchmark internal combustion engine manufacturer under the FIA’s ADUO analysis, Mazzola admitted he was surprised.
“No, I did not expect that. Everything we had heard suggested Mercedes had a clear horsepower advantage under the current interpretation of the regulations.
“Evidently Red Bull Powertrains has also done an excellent job. I am equally surprised by how far behind Honda appears to be. Red Bull Powertrains includes many engineers, some of them likely from Honda. Either many of Honda’s best people ended up at Red Bull, or there is another explanation.
“Seeing Honda so far behind has surprised me. Aston Martin also appears to be struggling, both in terms of power and aerodynamic performance.”
Mazzola nevertheless defended the ADUO concept itself.
“I do not think it is a bad system. It is useful for understanding the competitive situation and making adjustments for the following season. It is not a Balance of Performance system, which I would criticise heavily.
“It is a measure that can be improved and refined in order to give everyone a fair chance to achieve similar performance levels.”
“Ferrari has reached a ceiling”
If you had to summarise Ferrari’s current situation after Monaco, what is the main problem?
“My impression is that Ferrari has reached a ceiling.
“This is the fourth year under Fred Vasseur and the current group. They have done a good job because Ferrari is currently the second-best team. It would be wrong to describe the project as a failure.
“They have produced a good car. At the moment Ferrari is second in the championship. McLaren has been inconsistent and Red Bull, while improving, still appears slightly behind Ferrari from my perspective.
“So no, this is not a failure. But I would describe it as a plateau. I struggle to see the breakthrough that would allow Ferrari to become consistently the best team, not just the fastest team at the occasional Grand Prix.
“That is what concerns me. I see a ceiling. I do not see the next step.”
Does that mean there is also a management issue?
“If management includes identifying the right technical people and creating the conditions for them to succeed, then yes, there is also a management component.
“The current situation stems from a lack of technical creativity capable of moving the car to the front of the field.”
And what about Fred Vasseur? If Ferrari fails to win either championship, would you continue with him?
“The answer is simple. I hope the people above Fred Vasseur possess the expertise required to determine whether adjustments can solve the problem or whether deeper changes are needed.
“First of all, we need to finish the season. We are still at the beginning. There are many races left, many upgrades to come, reliability factors and countless variables that can influence the outcome.
“If Ferrari ultimately fails to win either the Constructors’ Championship or the Drivers’ Championship, then it will be necessary to evaluate the situation carefully.
“The key question will be: can Ferrari realistically fight for a world championship by refining the current structure, or is a more significant change required? The answer depends on the competence and judgement of those responsible for making that decision.”
Leave a Reply