Mercedes has identified two separate causes behind the energy deployment problems that have slowed George Russell in recent Formula 1 qualifying sessions. At Silverstone, the team traced the deficit largely to differences in driving style, while its investigation into Spa-Francorchamps found that George Russell did not lack electrical energy overall. Instead, the available energy was distributed poorly across the lap, leaving him short of deployment when it mattered most.
George Russell left the Belgian Grand Prix with more doubts than certainties and more questions than answers. The biggest concern was not simply the retirement caused by his collision with Lewis Hamilton, which affected both his morale and his championship position. Mercedes was also trying to understand why the performance gap to Kimi Antonelli had grown, particularly on the straights, where George Russell again encountered the deployment difficulties first seen at Silverstone.
George Russell loses time late in qualifying laps
The data from both the British and Belgian Grands Prix showed a similar pattern. During qualifying, George Russell lost several tenths on the faster sections towards the end of the lap. That behaviour appeared unusual because both Mercedes drivers were competing with the same basic car.
At Spa, one theory was that the difference could have been connected to the fresh power unit fitted to Kimi Antonelli’s Mercedes. However, that factor alone would not have been sufficient to explain such a significant performance gap between the two cars.
The Belgian weekend followed extensive Mercedes work on the W17’s straight-line efficiency at Spa-Francorchamps. Despite those aerodynamic changes, George Russell continued to lose time through the deployment phase late in the lap.
The problems affecting the British driver appear to have two roots. One is his driving style. The other is a factor that Mercedes itself has found difficult to isolate conclusively.
The current Formula 1 power units are extremely sensitive to external variables. When one parameter moves outside the ideal operating window, teams can struggle to reproduce the behaviour and identify its origin, even when using sophisticated simulator tools.
Why Formula 1 deployment problems are difficult to reproduce
Andrea Stella explained that teams attempt to anticipate and optimise energy behaviour before defining control strategies through a series of mathematical and simulation models. However, those models remain representations of the physical world rather than perfect copies of everything happening inside the car.
“You try to anticipate, optimise and then define the control strategies through certain models,” Andrea Stella explained. “But the models are a representation of the physical world, and these cars include a level of complexity that is sometimes not completely captured in the modelling. You can capture it over time because the models are refined and become more accurate.”
According to Andrea Stella, small discrepancies become particularly significant because the current power units are extremely sensitive to relatively minor changes.
“This would not be a problem if the power units were not so sensitive to small losses of fidelity,” Andrea Stella continued. “We have already said that there is an effect where a minimal variation in a driving input can produce a very large change. In the same way, even a small variation in the physical behaviour of the power-unit components can lead to major differences in the final outcome.”
That sensitivity makes troubleshooting especially difficult. A behaviour seen on the circuit may not immediately appear in the simulator because the precise combination of driver inputs, component behaviour, track conditions and control settings can be difficult to reproduce.
Mercedes links Silverstone deficit to George Russell’s driving style
Mercedes has separated the problem into two different cases. The first occurred at Silverstone, where George Russell lost approximately one and a half tenths along the Hangar Straight. The second emerged at Spa, where the deficit became considerably more visible around the Blanchimont section.
Regarding the British Grand Prix, Mercedes said its analysis traced the difference primarily to the contrasting driving styles used by George Russell and Kimi Antonelli.
“We had deployment problems on his car which we need to understand and resolve,” Mercedes deputy technical director Simone Resta said after the Belgian Grand Prix. “This all started at Silverstone, where we began to see differences in deployment between the two cars.”
“We carried out a huge amount of analysis and reached the conclusion that one of the factors contributing most significantly to this difference was related to driving style, meaning the two different driving styles used in the two cars.”
George Russell had already acknowledged before Silverstone and Spa that his current driving style was not working particularly well with the new generation of Formula 1 machinery. He recognised that he needed to adapt his technique and repeated that point before the Belgian Grand Prix, explaining that he had been attempting to alter his approach.
However, changing a driver’s established technique is not straightforward. It requires modifying instincts and automatic responses developed over many years of racing.
Kimi Antonelli and George Russell use the Mercedes W17 in very different ways. Kimi Antonelli is considerably more aggressive, particularly during corner entry and through the middle of the corner. He attempts to stabilise the rear of a car that is more predictable than those from the previous technical cycle.
Those contrasting approaches have also contributed to George Russell’s frustration over the differences between the two Mercedes cars. After retiring in Belgium, the British driver publicly asked Mercedes to give him the same car as Kimi Antonelli.
How driving technique affects energy deployment
The way a driver operates the car directly influences energy management, including gear selection and throttle application. Although it may appear counterintuitive, delaying throttle application can sometimes provide an advantage at very fast circuits.
Applying full throttle slightly later can allow a driver to preserve electrical energy for a more valuable point farther along the straight, rather than deploying it earlier during the traction phase. That energy can then support acceleration for longer before the MGU-K begins to reduce its output.
This explains why several teams at Silverstone and Spa focused on maximising corner entry. Drivers could attack more aggressively on the way into a corner and then delay the exit phase, preserving electrical energy for later on the following straight.
Minor variations in throttle position, braking behaviour and gear selection can therefore produce much larger changes in the way the hybrid system recovers and releases energy. A driving technique that appears faster through one part of a corner may create an energy disadvantage farther along the lap.
George Russell adapted before Spa but the problem remained
At Spa-Francorchamps, however, Mercedes encountered a different situation. George Russell had studied the Silverstone findings and adjusted his driving before the Belgian weekend, yet the team still recorded a deployment disparity between its two cars.
“George studied the situation extensively and was able to change and adapt before Spa, but we still saw differences in deployment between the two cars,” Simone Resta explained.
“There is a new regulation, we are only at the tenth race of the season and we are still struggling to understand every single factor that can contribute.”
Simone Resta stressed that every team remained in a phase of learning and discovery under the new Formula 1 regulations. Mercedes was not the only constructor to encounter unexpected differences in electrical deployment.
McLaren and Ferrari experienced similar anomalies at Spa. Ferrari managed to identify its problem and intervene before qualifying, limiting the irregular behaviour Charles Leclerc had encountered earlier in the weekend.
The complexity of the 2026 power units has also contributed to the wider debate surrounding Mercedes’ performance and the FIA’s assessment of the different engine manufacturers. Toto Wolff’s comments after Spa raised further questions about the FIA’s ADUO classification and the way power-unit performance is being evaluated.
Mercedes first discovers faulty flow meter in FP1
Mercedes engineers noticed a performance gap on George Russell’s car during the opening practice session at Spa. The team initially traced the problem to a malfunction involving the standard fuel-flow meter, which was subsequently replaced.
However, the deficit returned during Free Practice 2. Further analysis showed that, for reasons Mercedes could not immediately explain, George Russell was not recharging the battery correctly under braking for Turn 14, described by the source as the final opportunity to recover energy before the Blanchimont section.
Although that particular recharge point attracted attention, the overall deficit was spread across the complete lap. Mercedes made changes before Saturday in an attempt to recover the missing performance, but the deployment issue reappeared.
That made the problem more difficult to diagnose. Replacing the flow meter had addressed the initial malfunction, but it did not remove the broader imbalance in energy usage between George Russell’s car and Kimi Antonelli’s.
George Russell had enough energy but it was used too early
Speaking after the race, Toto Wolff explained that Mercedes had identified a problem in qualifying mode. After Turn 18, George Russell had less energy available to use in the Blanchimont area.
Toto Wolff added that discovering the anomaly at Spa was useful because the issue would have been significantly more difficult to recognise at the Hungaroring. Budapest’s shorter straights and different layout would make an end-of-lap deployment deficit less obvious in the data.
However, Kimi Antonelli was also more effective through the corners, and the deployment difference did not mean that George Russell had less total energy available over the entire lap.
“The impact was that he had more energy available at the beginning of the lap and then less energy at the end,” Toto Wolff explained.
In practical terms, George Russell possessed the required electrical energy, but Mercedes distributed it incorrectly around the lap. Too much was available or used earlier, leaving less support from the MGU-K when the car reached the final high-speed section.
As a result, the MGU-K on George Russell’s Mercedes began reducing its output earlier at Blanchimont. Mercedes does not believe this particular problem was caused by the driver and is continuing to investigate its origin.
The poor optimisation cost George Russell several tenths. Internal Mercedes analysis estimated the Spa deficit at more than two and a half tenths of a second, a substantial loss during a qualifying lap.
Qualifying restrictions make deployment deficit more costly
The issue carries its greatest consequences in qualifying, when the available electrical energy is more limited because of the FIA’s charging restrictions. Teams have less freedom to recover additional energy during a single flat-out lap, making the precise distribution of deployment especially important.
If the MGU-K reduces power before the end of a straight, the driver can lose time rapidly because the car is travelling at very high speed. Even a small reduction in electrical assistance can create a visible difference over the final metres of an acceleration zone.
Mercedes is therefore working to trace the precise cause of George Russell’s deployment problem. The team resolved the main Silverstone question by identifying driving style as a major contributor, but the Spa anomaly appears to have a separate technical origin.
Finding the answer before the races following the summer break will be essential. Several faster circuits are expected to place a premium on straight-line performance and energy deployment, meaning another poorly distributed qualifying lap could again cost George Russell valuable grid positions.
George Russell did not simply run out of energy at Spa. Mercedes believes the energy was available, but the car used it in the wrong parts of the lap. Solving that distribution problem will be crucial if the British driver is to avoid suffering the same late-lap deficit when Formula 1 returns to circuits where electrical deployment can decide qualifying positions.
Leave a Reply