Ferrari's experiment fails, but the team remains a threat for the Belgian Grand Prix

Racingnews365.com's technical analyst, Paolo Filisetti, takes a detailed look at what happened in the first two free practice sessions for the Belgian Grand Prix and why Ferrari's experiment did not yield the expected results.

Drawing clear conclusions after the first two practice sessions at Spa is no easy task. Instead of painting a consistent picture, FP1 and FP2 told very different stories, making it difficult to identify a clear trend connecting the two.

The only common thread in both sessions was the extremely complex management of electrical energy recovery around the legendary circuit. The first practice at least offered a relatively clear insight into the strengths and weaknesses of each car, with sector performance outlining a useful picture of each package's capabilities.

The second practice, however, was entirely different. It can best be characterized as a session of targeted experiments with energy deployment strategies rather than representative fast laps.

Kimi Antonelli was largely an exception to this theme. Mercedes made setup adjustments to his W17 after difficulties in the first session, allowing the Italian to have a smoother second practice. It's important to note that Mercedes limited its changes to mechanical settings and did not significantly alter the energy management strategy it was already using.

Ferrari's experiment fails, but engineers see a path forward

For Ferrari, the approach in the second practice was significantly different. The SF-26 was strikingly fast in the second sector during the first session, outpacing all other cars in that section of the track.

Instead of simply refining what was working, the Scuderia's engineers used the second session to test a revised energy harvesting strategy. The stated goal was to redistribute the advantage from the middle sector to the other two, which proved problematic in the first practice, especially the final one.

The experiment did not go according to plan. A combination of slight reductions in aerodynamic downforce and the altered energy strategy 'ate away' about half a second of the SF-26's advantage in the second sector, without bringing the compensatory gains in other parts of the track that Ferrari had hoped for.

Sources indicate that Ferrari's engineers have a clear understanding of the available potential and believe the exercise, despite its outcome, has given them useful guidance for refining both the car's setup and the energy deployment approach ahead of Saturday's qualifying.

The takeaway is that the raw gaps seen in the second practice are not a reliable reflection of the SF-26's true position at Spa. Lewis Hamilton's seven-tenths deficit and Charles Leclerc's 1.1-second gap, partly due to a mistake on his fast lap, should be viewed through this lens and not taken at face value.

Friday's practice sessions at least allowed Ferrari to gather useful data on race pace with different tyre compounds. The third free practice will now serve as a key opportunity to evaluate the changes stemming from the extensive data collected throughout the day.