Did Mercedes play it too safe with Andrea Kimi Antonelli? The numbers from the Austrian Grand Prix paint a different picture from the one described by Toto Wolff. Antonelli’s final stint suggests he had considerably stronger pace than both George Russell and Max Verstappen, raising the question of whether an earlier pit stop could have completely changed the outcome of the race.
After the Barcelona Grand Prix, Toto Wolff had been very clear: “We’ve always said we don’t want to impose team orders, but today we lost the race because we chose not to issue one. It’s a problem we’ll have to address.”
No team orders were needed in Austria, but there was one phase of the race where Mercedes’ strategic decisions certainly deserve closer examination.
On lap 42, George Russell was leading the race by just over one second from Max Verstappen, with Antonelli roughly seven seconds further back. Concerned about the possibility of a Red Bull undercut, Mercedes brought Russell into the pits on the following lap, ending a 24-lap stint on the hard tyres.
That temporarily handed the race lead to Verstappen, who elected to extend his own stint in an attempt to create an advantage with fresher tyres for the closing stages. It represented Red Bull’s final opportunity to launch an attack on the Mercedes in the final laps.
This sequence ultimately shaped the outcome of the Grand Prix. Mercedes’ strategists chose to leave Antonelli on track, extending his stint even further. Verstappen eventually stopped on lap 49, by which point Kimi had reduced the gap to the Red Bull to less than two seconds.
After Verstappen’s pit stop, Antonelli remained on circuit for another two laps, losing approximately two and a half seconds to both Russell and Verstappen. Looking at the final classification, that time loss becomes particularly significant. At the chequered flag, Antonelli finished just three-tenths of a second behind Verstappen and less than two seconds behind his Mercedes team-mate.
“I think it was the right strategy at the right time,” Toto Wolff commented. “When Kimi rejoined after his final stop, Piastri was only 1.8 seconds behind him. I believe the strategy worked. Kimi lost the race in the opening corners after starting in ‘full attack mode.’ That led him to make mistakes under braking into Turn 1, Turn 3 and Turn 4. But I like that approach because it’s exactly what I expect from him.”
There is little doubt that Antonelli’s biggest missed opportunity came during those opening two laps. However, Wolff’s explanation for delaying the final pit stop raises more questions.
“Extending Kimi’s final stint paid off. Every extra lap is worth around two and a half tenths thanks to having fresher tyres later in the race, and that’s why Antonelli was so fast at the end.”
Even if Wolff’s estimate of roughly two and a half tenths per lap is accepted, Antonelli’s pace during the closing stages tells a rather different story. On lap 54, he trailed Russell by 13.642 seconds. Following the Mercedes team principal’s reasoning, the tyre advantage should have allowed Antonelli to recover roughly five seconds over the remaining eighteen laps.
Instead, he gained more than twice that amount.
There is another statistic that further fuels the debate. Antonelli’s pace remained remarkably consistent all the way to the finish, showing virtually no signs of tyre degradation. On lap 59, he recorded a 1:10.374, while ten laps later—just two laps before the chequered flag—he posted a 1:10.407.
The difference was practically negligible, indicating that Antonelli reached the end of the race with tyres that were still performing at an extremely high level.
That naturally raises an intriguing question. Had Mercedes called him into the pits three or four laps after Russell—or even at the same time as Verstappen—the closing stages of the Austrian Grand Prix might have unfolded very differently.
Perhaps the Mercedes pit wall, together with the remote garage in Brackley, underestimated the pace Antonelli would be capable of sustaining during the final stint. Or perhaps the decision was also influenced by a desire to avoid a situation where the team could secure a one-two finish while simultaneously exposing Russell to an attack from his own team-mate.
It is impossible to know the real reasoning with certainty. However, the question remains—and it inevitably brings back Toto Wolff’s own comments after the Barcelona Grand Prix.
Leave a Reply