Ferrari’s United States Grand Prix qualifying disappointment was largely explained by a major straight-line speed deficit, with Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton finishing fourth and fifth despite the SF-26 having topped all three practice sessions at the Circuit of the Americas. The qualifying data reveals a car capable of gaining significant time through the corners but surrendering much of that advantage on the straights, while Mercedes and Red Bull extracted their performance more effectively when it mattered.
Kimi Antonelli secured his seventh pole position of the 2026 Formula 1 season with a 1:34.035, finishing 0.179 seconds ahead of Max Verstappen and 0.215 seconds clear of Isack Hadjar. The championship leader also abandoned his second Q3 attempt after a lap that, based on the time recorded to that point, was on course to beat pole by 0.130 seconds, suggesting that he still had additional performance available.
Friday’s and Saturday morning’s practice sessions had suggested a different outcome. Ferrari led FP1, FP2 and FP3, with Mercedes three tenths behind in the final session. However, while the Italian team struggled to reproduce its earlier speed in Q3, Red Bull delivered highly efficient qualifying laps and McLaren suffered from track-limits infringements.
Austin qualifying conditions: how the track evolved towards Q3
Qualifying took place in clear conditions, with an ambient temperature of 30°C and track temperatures ranging from 36.7°C to 40°C. The asphalt cooled slightly during Q3, while wind speeds reached 4.4 metres per second. Compared with FP3, the track surface was approximately two degrees cooler and the air was less humid.
Kimi Antonelli described the final qualifying session as “very difficult with the wind”, highlighting another variable that drivers had to manage while searching for the fastest possible lap.
Track evolution was particularly noticeable during the first two qualifying sessions. The benchmark improved by 0.83 seconds between Q1 and Q2, followed by a further 0.16 seconds between Q2 and Q3. The fastest laps in those sessions were Lando Norris’s 1:35.029 in Q1, Charles Leclerc’s 1:34.198 in Q2 and Kimi Antonelli’s pole-setting 1:34.035 in Q3.
Waiting before starting a flying lap proved advantageous in Q1 and Q2, where the second attempts could be half a second or more faster. That pattern disappeared in Q3, when the first and second runs produced similar lap times and track evolution effectively stopped.
Compared with Lewis Hamilton’s 1:34.893 benchmark in FP3, the eventual pole position was approximately 0.86 seconds faster.
Ferrari qualifying analysis: why the second sector decided pole position
The most revealing comparison comes from the fastest laps of Kimi Antonelli, Max Verstappen, Charles Leclerc and Lando Norris. Their first-sector performances were extremely close, with Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren all between 0.02 and 0.03 seconds slower than Mercedes.
The decisive advantage emerged in Sector 2. Antonelli gained 0.154 seconds over Ferrari, 0.206 seconds over Red Bull and 0.287 seconds over McLaren. In the final sector, McLaren was the only team significantly behind, losing 0.236 seconds.
Antonelli recorded the two strongest sector times of the session, setting 37.185 seconds in Sector 2 and 31.428 seconds in Sector 3. George Russell, meanwhile, registered the fastest first sector with a 25.230.
Within the middle sector, the differences were concentrated in a few important areas. At Turn 12, Lando Norris lost 0.20 seconds during braking alone. At Turn 8, Charles Leclerc gained 0.30 seconds over Antonelli, demonstrating Ferrari’s considerable cornering performance, but the Monegasque surrendered too much time along the straight.
The contrast was particularly clear between Turns 11 and 12. Antonelli reached 341 km/h, compared with just 326 km/h for Leclerc, leaving Ferrari 15 km/h slower at that point.
This was already considered one of the most delicate sections of the circuit because of the risk of battery energy running out before the braking zone. The predicted pole-position window had been between 1:33.5 and 1:35.0, a range comfortably covering Antonelli’s eventual time.
The comparison reinforces the concerns previously identified in Ferrari’s Austin practice analysis, where the SF-26 demonstrated encouraging downforce characteristics but struggled on the straights.
Ferrari gains in the corners but loses 0.390 seconds on the straights
The overall performance breakdown offers an even clearer explanation of Ferrari’s qualifying difficulties. Compared with its rivals, the SF-26 gained 0.347 seconds through slow corners and another 0.097 seconds through medium-speed corners.
However, Ferrari lost 0.390 seconds on the straights, the worst result among the four leading teams. This was a significant reversal from Friday, when the Italian car had appeared capable of setting the overall benchmark.
Lewis Hamilton explained that power was “the only place where we’re losing”, estimating the deficit at three or four tenths of a second. The figures are consistent with Ferrari’s strong cornering performance being undermined by its straight-line limitations.
It was therefore not surprising that Charles Leclerc could not improve upon his 1:34.198 from Q2 during the final qualifying session.
The recorded speed differences can also be examined through the ScuderiaFans F1 top-speed comparison, which provides additional data on straight-line performance across Formula 1 sessions.
Mercedes had the fastest theoretical lap, but Red Bull was more efficient
Combining each team’s strongest sector times produces a revealing picture of the potential available during qualifying. Mercedes had the fastest ideal lap, followed by Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren.
- Mercedes: 1:33.843
- Ferrari: 1:34.028
- Red Bull: 1:34.126
- McLaren: 1:34.402
Mercedes therefore held a theoretical advantage of 0.185 seconds over Ferrari, but it also left the largest amount of performance unused, with a difference of 0.192 seconds between its ideal team lap and actual pole position.
Red Bull was the most efficient team, losing just 0.088 seconds relative to its theoretical best. Max Verstappen finished only 0.004 seconds away from his ideal performance, while Isack Hadjar matched his theoretical benchmark exactly.
McLaren was furthest away from Mercedes in the ideal-lap comparison, trailing by 0.559 seconds. The team lost 0.239 seconds through fast corners and 0.113 seconds in slow corners, recovering ground mainly on the straights and through medium-speed bends.
Lando Norris’s deficit was concentrated in the second half of the lap, where he lost 0.287 seconds in Sector 2 and another 0.236 seconds in Sector 3.
How Ferrari, Mercedes, Red Bull and McLaren compared around COTA
Breaking the circuit into different types of sections reveals four distinct performance characteristics. Red Bull gained the most time on the straights, finding 0.273 seconds compared with the average of the four teams, but lost 0.278 seconds in slow-speed corners.
Ferrari displayed almost the opposite behaviour, excelling through slower bends but suffering on the straights. Mercedes was strongest through high-speed corners, while McLaren was the weakest team in those sections.
Dividing the circuit into 25 individual sections produced another comparison. Mercedes was fastest in seven, McLaren in six, Ferrari in five and Red Bull in four.
These figures illustrate why Ferrari’s latest SF-26 aerodynamic development package offered encouraging signs without delivering pole position. The car was highly competitive in specific parts of the circuit, but Mercedes achieved a stronger overall balance across the complete lap.
Qualifying tyre strategy: Mercedes uses five fresh sets, Red Bull just three
Tyre allocation and usage also played an important role, especially during Q1. Of the drivers taking part, 19 used soft tyres, while only Kimi Antonelli, George Russell and Oscar Piastri selected the medium compound. Every driver subsequently used soft tyres in Q2 and Q3.
Comparing the improvements between Q1 and Q2 for drivers switching from mediums to softs with those already using softs suggests a compound difference of approximately 0.65 seconds. That closely matches the six-tenth gap observed during practice.
Track evolution also had an independent influence. Antonelli improved by 0.734 seconds during Q1 while remaining on the same set of medium tyres.
Securing pole position required significant tyre usage from Mercedes. Antonelli and Russell each used five new sets during qualifying, comprising one set of mediums and four sets of softs. Red Bull, by comparison, used only three sets in total.
Every driver’s fastest Q3 lap was completed on new soft tyres, with Arvid Lindblad the sole exception.
Q1 analysis: Ferrari saves tyres while others push until the end
Two contrasting approaches emerged during Q1. Charles Leclerc, Lewis Hamilton, Max Verstappen, Isack Hadjar and Liam Lawson completed only one flying lap, prioritising tyre preservation while avoiding the risks associated with additional attempts.
However, that approach came at the cost of a shrinking margin to the elimination threshold as the track improved.
When Verstappen completed his lap, he was 3.638 seconds clear of the cut-off, but by the end of Q1 that advantage had fallen to 0.960 seconds. Hadjar’s margin decreased from 3.142 to 0.889 seconds, while Lawson’s fell from 1.952 to just 0.513 seconds.
Antonelli, Russell and Piastri instead remained on their medium tyres for two flying laps, gaining between five and seven tenths on their second attempts.
The drivers who continued pushing until the end faced greater risks. Pierre Gasly survived elimination by 0.271 seconds after losing a lap time for exceeding track limits at Turn 9. Oliver Bearman progressed by only 0.065 seconds.
Fernando Alonso secured the final qualifying position despite a fire at the rear of his car, finishing 0.291 seconds ahead of Esteban Ocon. Norris recorded the fastest Q1 time with a 1:35.029, completing his lap after the chequered flag had fallen.
Q2 analysis: Charles Leclerc fastest as elimination margin falls to 22 milliseconds
The second qualifying session was decided by extremely fine margins. Charles Leclerc recorded a 1:34.198 to top Q2, finishing 0.080 seconds ahead of Kimi Antonelli and 0.107 seconds clear of George Russell.
All three achieved their fastest times on a second attempt using a fresh set of tyres, whereas Max Verstappen, Isack Hadjar, Lewis Hamilton and Lando Norris progressed with just one flying lap.
Hadjar and Hamilton ended the session only 0.171 and 0.225 seconds respectively ahead of the elimination threshold.
Liam Lawson established the cut-off at 1:35.058, securing progression by just 0.022 seconds over Pierre Gasly and 0.100 seconds over Nico Hülkenberg.
Gabriel Bortoleto was eliminated after having two lap times deleted for track-limits infringements. Franco Colapinto, Fernando Alonso and Oliver Bearman also failed to progress.
Bearman had completed a 1:35.592, but the lap was deleted for exceeding track limits at Turn 11. Had it remained valid, the time would have placed him thirteenth rather than sixteenth.
Q3 analysis: Kimi Antonelli claims pole with his first attempt
Antonelli secured pole position on his opening Q3 run, benefiting from a clean lap without traffic. The car ahead remained more than 3.3 seconds away throughout the attempt, allowing the Mercedes driver to concentrate on extracting the maximum possible performance.
His second run was on course to be even faster. He completed Sector 1 in 25.292 seconds and Sector 2 in 37.185 seconds, the quickest middle-sector time of the session.
However, a slide on the exit of Turn 13 forced him to abandon the attempt and return to the pits. His incomplete third sector was recorded at 36.734 seconds, compared with his earlier benchmark of 31.428.
Other drivers found less improvement. Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc were the only two competitors to improve with valid laps, gaining 0.302 and 0.069 seconds respectively.
Nevertheless, Leclerc’s fastest time of the entire qualifying session remained his 1:34.198 from Q2. George Russell was 0.076 seconds slower than his earlier benchmark, while Oscar Piastri’s performance was virtually identical, differing by just 0.002 seconds.
Arvid Lindblad completed only one flying lap on used tyres, while Liam Lawson did not run at all in Q3 after Racing Bulls decided to keep him in the garage.
The final qualifying order behind Antonelli was led by Max Verstappen, 0.179 seconds behind, followed by Isack Hadjar at 0.215 seconds. Charles Leclerc qualified fourth at 0.232 seconds, with Lewis Hamilton fifth at 0.276 seconds.
George Russell finished sixth, 0.441 seconds from pole, followed by Oscar Piastri at 0.768 seconds and Lando Norris at 1.014 seconds.
A direct comparison between Antonelli and Verstappen shows where the pole position was decided. The Mercedes driver lost 0.056 seconds in the first sector but recovered 0.178 seconds in Sector 2 and another 0.057 seconds in Sector 3.
George Russell loses four positions relative to Mercedes’ potential
George Russell produced one of the most disappointing performances relative to his car’s potential. Mercedes had sufficient overall pace to occupy the first two positions, yet the British driver qualified sixth, 0.441 seconds behind his teammate.
Kimi Antonelli was 0.270 seconds quicker than Russell on their best laps and held an advantage of 0.367 seconds when comparing their theoretical ideal performances. Russell was faster only in the opening sector.
His two Q3 attempts produced laps of 1:34.476 and 1:34.552, both slower than the 1:34.305 he had achieved during Q2.
With the two Mercedes cars running the same specification, the four-position difference between the team’s potential and Russell’s result reflected his qualifying performance rather than a difference in equipment.
The gaps between other teammates were considerably smaller. Isack Hadjar qualified third, just 0.036 seconds behind Max Verstappen, having been only fourteenth in FP1.
Charles Leclerc beat Lewis Hamilton by 0.113 seconds on their fastest laps, while Lando Norris was 0.264 seconds quicker than Oscar Piastri in their best-lap comparison despite starting behind his McLaren teammate.
Track limits at Turn 19 cost Lando Norris two grid positions
Track limits were another decisive factor during the United States Grand Prix qualifying session. Eight lap times were deleted, with four infringements occurring at Turn 19.
In Q3, Max Verstappen, Isack Hadjar and Lando Norris all lost their second attempts for exceeding track limits at that corner. The deleted laps made no difference to the Red Bull drivers because their second attempts were already slower than their opening runs.
For Norris, however, the consequences were significant. His deleted 1:34.379 would have secured sixth place rather than eighth, putting him ahead of George Russell and Oscar Piastri.
The starting grid was further modified by three power-unit penalties affecting drivers from ninth place downwards. Gabriel Bortoleto received a 20-place penalty, Franco Colapinto was penalised by 10 positions and Arvid Lindblad received a five-place drop.
Lindblad consequently fell from ninth to fourteenth, while Liam Lawson, Pierre Gasly and Nico Hülkenberg each gained one grid position.
Ferrari falls back as Mercedes transforms its Austin performance
The qualifying result represented a complete reversal of the competitive picture established during practice. Ferrari had topped FP1, FP2 and FP3, yet ended qualifying 0.163 seconds behind on the best-lap comparison and 0.232 seconds away from pole on the grid.
Among the four leading teams, Ferrari was the only one to lose ground relative to its earlier performance.
Mercedes followed the opposite trajectory. The German team had been 0.326 seconds behind in FP1 and 0.303 seconds off the pace in FP3, but ultimately secured pole position.
Red Bull demonstrated the greatest consistency, remaining between 0.084 and 0.189 seconds behind the benchmark in practice before finishing 0.179 seconds away in qualifying.
At driver level, Lando Norris suffered one of the biggest setbacks, falling from third in FP1 to eighth on the grid. The outstanding improvement came from Isack Hadjar, who progressed from fourteenth in the opening practice session to third in qualifying.
The difference between Ferrari’s promising practice form and its final qualifying performance is particularly significant after the strong SF-26 pace demonstrated by Charles Leclerc during FP2. What initially looked like a realistic opportunity to challenge for pole ultimately became another exercise in understanding why the car could not consistently deliver its maximum performance.
What Austin qualifying reveals about Ferrari’s performance
Two factors ultimately decided qualifying at the Circuit of the Americas. The first was Mercedes’ second-sector advantage, which cost Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren between 0.154 and 0.287 seconds. The second was a Q3 session in which track evolution had effectively stopped, allowing Antonelli to secure pole with his first clean lap without needing to complete a faster second attempt.
Q1 and Q2, by contrast, were largely exercises in managing risk, tyre allocation and rapidly improving track conditions. Those who continued pushing until the final moments could find substantial gains, although they also exposed themselves to track-limits infringements and elimination.
Mercedes emerged with the fastest car over a theoretical lap, but Red Bull was the team that extracted the greatest proportion of its available performance. George Russell’s sixth-place result illustrated the difference between having a quick car and successfully converting that potential into a competitive grid position.
Ferrari, meanwhile, went from leading all three practice sessions to fourth and fifth with Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton. The SF-26 demonstrated excellent performance through slower corners but lost crucial time on the straights, preventing the team from translating its strengths into pole position.
The United States Grand Prix will now reveal whether Mercedes’ qualifying speed and Red Bull’s efficiency can also be maintained over a full race distance. For Ferrari, the priority will be determining whether its cornering advantage can help recover positions despite the straight-line deficit exposed during qualifying.
Leave a Reply