The 2026 Belgian Grand Prix: Ferrari’s Speed Comes with an Asterisk

Charles Leclerc finished less than two seconds from winning the 2026 Belgian Grand Prix. Lewis Hamilton finished fourth after a crash, an opening-lap collision, a penalty and a Ferrari pit stop that ended with a mechanic being struck by his front-right tire. Their races appeared to tell opposite stories. Leclerc looked controlled and opportunistic while Hamilton spent the afternoon recovering from one complication after another. In reality, both drivers faced the same Ferrari problem. 

Both drivers had enough pace to fight near the front. Both became involved in contact at Turn 5. Both required Ferrari to make consequential decisions around them. And both demonstrated that the Scuderia is fast enough to threaten Mercedes while still making its own success far more complicated than it should.

Leclerc represented Ferrari at its most convincing. Following his Silverstone victory, Spa offered a chance to prove that his resurgence was more than an isolated win. He started fourth after Lando Norris’s grid penalty, moved ahead of George Russell on the opening lap and kept himself within reach of the leading battle. His race was not flawless. While defending from Oscar Piastri at Turn 5, Leclerc moved toward the outside of the circuit and made contact with the McLaren. Piastri sustained damage, but the stewards decided that no further action was necessary.

Ferrari then delivered one of its sharpest strategic calls of the season so far. 

By stopping Leclerc during the second Virtual Safety Car period, the team moved him ahead of Kimi Antonelli and temporarily into control of the race. Ferrari had not produced the fastest car, but it had recognized the opportunity first and placed Leclerc in a position to steal the victory. Antonelli eventually recovered and passed him with ten laps remaining. Leclerc nevertheless stayed close enough to apply pressure until the finish, crossing the line only 1.9 seconds behind.

The Monegasque driver didn’t win, but Belgium may have been more persuasive evidence of his return to form than Silverstone. At Spa, Leclerc remained a factor even when Ferrari lacked the fastest package and the race did not naturally fall toward him.

Hamilton, meanwhile, represented the other side of the team. His weekend had already been compromised by a practice crash that forced Ferrari to rebuild his car. On the opening lap, he then made contact with Russell as the Mercedes attempted to pass around the outside of Turn 5. He understeered into Russell, sending him into the gravel and out of the race. The stewards issued a five-second penalty.

And naturally, the FIA’s contrast with Leclerc’s incident was rather difficult to ignore.

Both involved a rival attempting to pass a Ferrari around the outside of the same corner. Both ended in contact. Leclerc was cleared despite Piastri sustaining damage, while Hamilton was penalized even though Russell himself regarded their collision as a racing incident.

The FIA could explain the difference through its racing-room guidelines. Russell had established enough overlap to be entitled to space; Piastri had not. That may make the decisions technically consistent, but it does not necessarily make them feel consistent. The incidents showed why the FIA is often a persistent source of frustration and ire from teams, drivers, and fans alike. Two moments can look remarkably similar on track and still receive opposite judgments because of a precise measurement of overlap. The reasoning may be defensible, but the distinction is rarely obvious to anyone watching the race unfold.

Hamilton’s penalty then became part of a larger Ferrari failure. When he stopped under the VSC, he first had to serve the five seconds. Ferrari had also failed to properly communicate his request for a front-wing adjustment. Once the tires were changed, Hamilton received the green light to leave just as a mechanic stepped forward with the adjustment tool. His front-right tire struck the mechanic, who fell but was fortunately uninjured. The stewards found Hamilton blameless and fined Ferrari for the unsafe release.

One side of the red garage looked capable of winning on race day. The other appeared to be improvising through an emergency. Leclerc had just benefited from a decisive strategy call. Hamilton arrived carrying a debatable penalty, only for a communication failure to make his afternoon even more difficult. Hamilton, despite all the difficulties, still recovered to fourth, passed Piastri and recorded the fastest lap. His pace was never the central problem.

This is why Belgium shouldn’t be reduced to one brilliant Ferrari race and one disastrous one. Leclerc was not flawless, and Hamilton was not slow. One nearly won after Ferrari executed at exactly the right moment and a collision escaped punishment. The other salvaged fourth after a collision was punished and an operational error that was not his fault. Together, they revealed where Ferrari currently stands.

The SF-26 is capable of challenging at circuits where the team expected to struggle. Leclerc has rediscovered his confidence. Hamilton still possesses enough race pace to rescue compromised weekends. Ferrari’s strategists can identify opportunities before their rivals respond. The speed is there, but what remains missing is simplicity.

Leclerc’s race showed how close Ferrari is to becoming a complete championship team. Hamilton’s, meanwhile, showed why it has not become one yet. And within the intersection of the two, the drivers reveal the same problem: Ferrari still asks its drivers to overcome too much: disrupted sessions, contact, penalties, communication failures and operational mistakes, so much that even its strongest weekends arrive with an asterisk attached.