In Formula 1, some problems can be solved with a simple setup change, others require an upgrade. And then there are those issues that stop looking like isolated incidents and start to resemble something far more fundamental. That is exactly what is happening at Audi. Three race weekends, three compromised starts, and three races telling the same story. No one inside the team says it openly, but the feeling in the paddock is clear: this is no longer about adaptation or learning. There is a deeper technical issue rooted in the very concept of the car.
Audi and a problem that is no longer a one-off incident
If Ferrari currently holds the benchmark for race starts on the grid, at the opposite end of the spectrum sits Audi. Their launches have become a clear technical concern, to the point that Gabriel Bortoleto described them as “terrible” after the Japanese Grand Prix, where he and Nico Hülkenberg collectively lost ten positions on the opening lap.
This is not an isolated case. Across all three race weekends so far, Audi has shown the same weakness. It is no longer a matter of adaptation or early-season learning—it is a structural limitation.
Nico Hülkenberg himself admitted it without hesitation: “It is obviously a real thing.”
The numbers confirm it. On average, Audi drivers lose around four positions on the first lap. Out of six race starts, only once did either driver gain positions—and even then, it was due to incidents ahead rather than pure performance. The worst example came in the Chinese Sprint, where Hülkenberg dropped nine places. It is clear evidence that the issue is not driver-related, but car-related.
And while other teams—such as Mercedes—are still struggling but showing signs of progress, Audi appears stuck. Bortoleto was direct about it: “We can improve a bit, but not in the short term to catch Ferrari.”
The technical root: a turbo that is too big for clean launches
The difficulties at the start are not unique to Audi. The removal of the MGU-H and restrictions on the MGU-K have made race starts more complex for everyone. Now, the turbo must be brought into the optimal operating window manually, keeping the engine at full load for around ten seconds before launch, while the battery must also be charged at exactly the right level for the second phase of acceleration.
But not all turbochargers behave the same.
Ferrari, for example, opted for a smaller, lighter turbocharger that spools up more quickly—one of the key reasons behind its strong launch performance.
Audi, on the other hand, appears to have taken the opposite approach: a much larger turbo, possibly the biggest on the grid. This brings benefits in top speed and overall power delivery, but it creates a major disadvantage at the start.
Bortoleto almost confirmed this indirectly: “The procedure is very similar for everyone. I think some teams have developed the car differently to achieve better starts.” He added: “I don’t think any team expected it to be this difficult to get off the line. So far, it has been really bad.”
If the issue truly lies in the turbo design, then no procedural refinement will be enough. It requires a conceptual redesign—and that takes time.
Mattia Binotto, head of Audi’s Formula 1 project, acknowledged this clearly: “It is certainly not our strength at the moment… there is no obvious solution to apply.” He added: “It is an absolute priority… we have good qualifying pace, but it is not worth starting there if we lose all those positions at the start.”
The cancelled races, paradoxically, may now offer a small opportunity: “We will have a bit more time to reflect on the start of the season,” he concluded.
Audi is not simply trying to fix procedures. It is confronting a conceptual limitation in its car design. Race starts are not a detail—they are a critical performance factor shaping every race.
And as long as the turbo remains unchanged, the team will continue to carry a structural handicap that no driver can compensate for. The real work—the kind that could change the course of the season—has only just begun.
Leave a Reply