Although both teams run the same power unit, qualifying results at Melbourne have been notably different. Andrea Stella explains the performance gaps between McLaren and Mercedes, highlighting differences in software management, cornering grip, and downforce.
Same engine, different outcomes
The question is straightforward: if Mercedes’ superiority in Melbourne qualifying comes mainly from the power unit, why are McLaren’s two cars starting from the third row behind a Red Bull and a Mercedes? Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri use the same engine as George Russell, as required by regulations which prevent homologation of two different power unit specifications. However, how the engine is managed and exploited via software is entirely up to each team.
This freedom is an opportunity allowed by the regulations, but especially in the early stages of a technical cycle, the group that designed the power unit inevitably has deeper knowledge of the project, giving them an advantage in using it most efficiently. In qualifying at Albert Park, Piastri trailed Russell by 0.239s in sector one, 0.371s in sector two, and 0.252s in sector three. Telemetry graphs confirm Russell’s advantage along all the straights, particularly in the second half of the long straights. Some have also suggested Mercedes may have optimized gear ratios, but Andrea Stella explained the analysis in detail during the McLaren post-qualifying briefing.
Understanding the power unit
“As you can imagine, this was one of the key points in our post-qualifying debrief,” Stella said. “We need to understand how to make the most of these power units because, as we can see, it can significantly affect lap times. In some respects, this is good news because it shows there’s a lot of potential if the control system and programming are used correctly. There’s plenty of time to gain on the lap if you exploit it properly.”
Stella emphasized that this was still the very first qualifying session with these engines. “It was an important step for getting a sense of things: finally, we all ran under the same conditions, which allowed us to understand several aspects. From this perspective, being a customer team doesn’t put you at an advantage, but nothing here is about hardware—it’s about using it optimally. We’re entering a new era of Formula 1 where many factors are essential, for example how energy is used on one straight to maximize performance on the next. There are multiple factors, and we’re learning a new language and a new way of thinking.”
Where McLaren can improve
Stella’s points are clear in the data. Russell recorded only the 15th top speed on the finish line, but on the straight after turn two, he was far faster than anyone else. “We still have things to learn about the power unit,” Stella admitted. “But it’s also true that Mercedes isn’t just fast on the straights. There are corners where we can compete with them, and others where they are faster. So right now, Mercedes is better at exploiting the power unit, but they also have superior overall cornering grip.”
“I imagine this has a lot to do with downforce levels,” the team principal concluded. “For McLaren, there are two clear objectives. One is to work with our HPP partners to get more performance from the power unit. At the same time, we need to improve the car’s aerodynamic performance so that we can be faster in corners as well. What we’re seeing is that every time we improve the power unit’s efficiency, everything else also works better, including cornering.”
Andrea Stella’s insights reveal that the 2026 battle is as much a digital war as it is a physical one, with McLaren currently playing catch-up to understand the “new language” of energy deployment. While the shared hardware ensures a base level of performance, the gulf between Mercedes and its customers in Melbourne proves that mastering the software and aerodynamic integration remains the final hurdle for McLaren to overcome.
Leave a Reply