Located a few kilometres from Kuala Lumpur, the circuit is 5.543km long and combines long straights with a series of high-speed corners, particularly concentrated in the middle sector. It is a track that generates medium levels of tyre energy, placing it in a severity range comparable with Spa-Francorchamps and Shanghai. Ambient and track temperatures will be an important factor in tyre management, making thermal degradation one of the key variables throughout the weekend.

For the return to Kuala Lumpur, Pirelli has selected the C2, C3 and C4 compounds, designated Hard, Medium and Soft respectively. This choice is slightly more aggressive than the harder trio that would have represented a more conservative option given the characteristics of the circuit. The aim, however, will be to provide teams with a broader strategic range, creating conditions that reduce the time difference between one-stop and two-stop strategies.

Sepang has a relatively abrasive surface, with a roughness level comparable to that of Bahrain, while retaining its own distinctive characteristics.

Grip levels are likely to be low on Friday, but should progressively improve over the course of the weekend as the track evolves. One of the main challenges facing the teams will be thermal management on both axles.

The circuit has undergone several changes in recent years. In 2023, the section between Turns 6 and 12 was resurfaced, with further work carried out in the area around Turn 9. However, according to the assessment made by Pirelli engineers a few weeks ago, the overall characteristics of the surface remain very similar to those recorded in 2017.

More recently, from the start of September, further surface levelling work has been carried out to eliminate irregularities in the asphalt, along with cleaning operations aimed at improving track conditions ahead of the Grand Prix.

Teams will also have to contend with the lack of available data. Despite being a historic circuit, no team has genuinely relevant references for the current generation of Formula 1 cars.

As a result, Friday’s free practice sessions will be more important than usual, both for the drivers, who will need to familiarise themselves with a circuit many have only experienced in the simulator, and for the teams, who will need to find the right car set-up and assess tyre behaviour.

Furthermore, while there is no shortage of technical unknowns, the weather conditions could add another layer of complexity. Afternoon thunderstorms are a constant in this region in early October and could affect any session over the weekend. Intense heat, high humidity and sudden downpours have always been among the defining characteristics of the Malaysian Grand Prix during the years when it was a regular fixture on the Formula 1 calendar.

The record book

The upcoming event will be the 20th Grand Prix held at Sepang, which was part of the Formula 1 calendar from 1999 to 2017. The driver with the most wins in Kuala Lumpur is Sebastian Vettel, with four victories, one more than Michael Schumacher and Fernando Alonso. Schumacher also shares the record for pole positions at the Malaysian circuit with Lewis Hamilton: both drivers have started from pole five times. Among the teams, Scuderia Ferrari holds the record with seven wins.

The most significant moment of the Baku weekend was undoubtedly qualifying, culminating in pole position for the Briton, who put eight tenths between himself and the nearest pursuer — a margin Formula 1 had not seen for around 20 years.

The engine delivers, but there is much more besides

Looking at the three tenths Russell put between himself and his rivals in the third sector, it would be simplistic to put it all down to engine power alone. To be clear: Brixworth’s Power Unit as a whole is undeniably the best in the field, but in Baku the W17 proved to be an efficient car in terms of the chassis too.

Further evidence of this came in the old city section, where Mercedes showed it possesses other strengths beyond its already well-known energy efficiency in terms of deployment: clear aerodynamic efficiency, proven agility in slow-speed corners and excellent traction, allowing the rear axle to avoid wheelspin on corner exit and, consequently, preventing the drivers from wasting an excessive amount of battery energy once they get back on the throttle.

The Azerbaijan round therefore provided the clearest explanation yet of why the W17 remains the benchmark on the grid, despite receiving no upgrades since the Canadian weekend at the end of May. Those updates, however, will return to the fore in the coming days in Malaysia, with the aim of wrapping up the double-title battle as soon as possible.

Vasseur’s tenure has reached full maturity

Fred Vasseur’s leadership is under scrutiny. The French executive was rightly afforded mitigating circumstances, having taken over the reins of Gestione Sportiva Ferrari midway through 2023. The following season was among the most positive in recent years. The most repeated line was that Ferrari had returned to the fight for the constructors’ title until the final race, something not seen since Fernando Alonso’s days. What appeared to be a promising growth curve came to an abrupt halt last year because of one of the most disastrous technical projects conceived at Maranello. In the meantime, the French engineer from Draveil has had the time, opportunity and resources to shape the Prancing Horse’s organisational structure according to his own management philosophy. He has handed prestigious, responsible roles to people he trusts, but ultimately we are once again talking about the same old story. In the faces of Ferrari’s most prominent figures, drivers included, there is a sense of resignation towards an inescapable outcome. It is a weariness that has spread through Ferrari’s fanbase, especially among its older supporters.

Kimi, the nation’s saviour

Italian pride has latched on to Kimi Antonelli’s achievements, which unintentionally make the criticism from a section of the fanbase less harsh, as they feel properly represented by the Bologna driver. It marks an epochal shift in a country that has always placed the success of the historic Modena team above that of Italian drivers. It is a scenario that lessens the clamour surrounding Ferrari’s failures, especially among younger fans, who are more invested in the fortunes of their heroes.

Nothing but applause for Mr Grumpy and Red Bull’s super pairing

George Russell does not put a foot wrong (10), taking a thoroughly deserved victory on the streets of the City of Winds, brushing the walls lap after lap and proving it is wrong to write him off in the title race. There was plenty of fear that Verstappen might snatch it in the closing stages, but let us be objective: give Mr Grumpy his due, it was a more than deserved win.

Let us move on to Red Bull’s two bulls: Verstappen lives up to expectations after being let down by his RB22 in qualifying and finishes just a whisker behind Russell (9.5); another podium to add to the collection, while he awaits a victory that has still eluded him this season. The man who really dazzles, though, is Isack Hadjar (9.5), who returns to the track after six weeks out like a genuinely hungry boxer, knocking out his rivals: SuperMax has finally found a worthy team-mate with whom he can take Red Bull back to the top.

Performance wanted

The first serious mistake arrives for good old Kimi (6.5), who gets too greedy in qualifying and damages the car. Called upon to make another recovery drive, he cannot repeat what we saw at Monza, with the Bologna native stopping in fifth place: a more than respectable fightback which does the championship leadership good, but this time George’s pace was simply impossible to match.

On to the unhappy Ferrari, with Leclerc (7-) slipping backwards after taking second in qualifying as though he were driving an Ape Car. The Monegasque’s unmistakable talent is clear even in the closing stages of the race, as he manages to fend off Kimi’s attacks, but there is no denying that the SF-26’s pace is currently leaking from every corner, while Hamilton (6) has returned to lament mode. It is difficult to say what is happening in Maranello, where rumours surrounding the team principal are merely the cherry on an already very sour cake.

Serious slips

On to the offending pile-up: Colapinto (0) destroys, in a matter of moments, not only his record (666 days since his last DNF), but also Alpine’s double points finish, taking out Gasly (N.C) and poor Norris (N.C) in one fell swoop.

None of you would want to be in his shoes, with Briatore truly furious about what happened. Added to that are the hateful comments from the aforementioned Franco “fans”, who ruin anything resembling the terms “passion” or “support”. When will we stop spreading gratuitous hate?

Well, look who is back

Amid the thousand twists and turns, Bearman and Ocon (7) manage to put their Haas cars in the points, with the Frenchman hoping, after such a positive weekend, to find a seat at another team for 2027, given that his own has practically shown him the door.

Another word of praise for the excellent Lindblad (7), back in the points once again (even if he makes a mistake by taking Lawson out), and for Matador Carlos Sainz (7), who returns to the points after months away: has Williams truly reached a turning point after its update package? Finally, a brief thought for Piastri (6-) who, despite the mistake that cost him a podium and a points finish, has at least rediscovered some feeling with his McLaren, with which he had so far only battled in vain.

Another round, same failures

On to Alex Albon (2), who puts his FW48 into the wall, and the Cadillac duo who, even with numerous DNFs, cannot get either car into the top 10; indeed, Bottas even puts his into the wall on the final lap. At Aston Martin, everything is going brilliantly: both Stroll and Alonso follow the race from their comfort-form chairs in the motorhome. 

Next stop, Sepang: for Ferrari fans, Malaysia brings back happy memories... But thinking they can be repeated is more a hymn to miracles than a probability. 

But, by all means, never say never.

Speak to you very, very soon, my friends,

Your Rompipaddock.

Cover photo in the circle: Wikipedia

Cover photo by Finlay Williams / WHYOUT images

In the first part of our exclusive interview with Jarno Zaffelli, we traced the origins of the project and, above all, what happened in 2025, when the Italian company ended its supervisory role on the circuit. The designers claimed authorship of the layout, while arguing that several elements were subsequently changed: "Is the track as we designed it? Absolutely yes. If you look at it from above, it is ours. But the result was modified."

The story also involves IFEMA and the subsequent continuation of the project by Tilke, as well as a delicate contractual matter recounted by Dromo in the first part of our exclusive, which we invite you to read in order to reconstruct the full story.

But establishing who designed the Madring circuit is only the first step. To truly understand what happened, it is necessary to delve into the more technical side of the matter and analyse what changed between the original project and the track that was actually built.

According to the Italian company, some later interventions profoundly altered the way the track behaves.

It does not necessarily take an extra hundred metres of straight or a completely different corner. In Formula 1, a change in camber, a moved kerb, a different run-off area or another type of asphalt can be enough to alter the way a driver tackles a sequence.

This is at the heart of the second part of the lengthy exclusive interview given to Formula1.it. It is also a point cited in the Cologne judges’ reasoning: FIA, Formula 1 and urban-planning constraints set objectives and limits, but did not dictate a single geometry. Several solutions remained possible and, according to the Court, Dromo’s choices were creative in nature.

Turn 5, the main planned overtaking point

Photo: studiodromo.it

Zaffelli began with an important point: from the earliest simulations, it was clear where the main overtaking opportunity would be concentrated. "We had created a layout which, from the outset, had one particularly clear overtaking point: Turn 5."

However, this would not have been a "free choice" for the Italian company. "If it were up to me, I would gladly make a track with four or five overtaking points," Jarno added. The real issue was the constraints of the site. In particular, the presence of the M11 motorway prevented the run-off area from being extended further.

The original configuration of the sequence would also have been different from that seen during the race weekend. "Turn 5 was meant to be tighter and carry less speed; on the inside of Turn 6 we had planned gravel as a deterrent and the kerb reference point was further over. It was not a detail: it was intended to make the braking more angular and shape the behaviour of the T5-T6 pair."

"If you watch the first onboard video we released on our website, the one with the red asphalt, which attracted a great deal of criticism from everyone because our driver oversteered through the chicane, although that was intentional, you can clearly see that the corner had a gravel run-off area and the kerb was two metres further to the right."

"This would therefore have led drivers to brake for longer and in a more angular way, precisely because we knew the corner had to turn right, also because on the left we had the grandstands and the motorway interchange, which we could not touch. But the point was not simply to brake late: T5 and T6 were conceived as a sequence. Whoever defended or braked very late into Turn 5 could gain the first apex, but would be geometrically compromised in the switchback at Turn 6; whoever sacrificed Turn 5 could instead set up the crossover and attempt the counterattack. The gravel on the inside of Turn 6 prevented drivers from widening the line through Turn 5 and then straightening the second part as well."

"We actually produced 16 main variants of the concept alone, and the configuration built differs from our idea at some decisive points. We also assessed many alternatives there, including going straight into the tunnel, which was not approved."

Turn 11 changes the Monumental

Even more interesting is what would have happened in the sequence leading to the Monumental. The spectacular banked corner, which immediately became the symbol of the Madring, was not changed. "They did not touch the Monumental; it is identical to our designs."

What changed, however, was the way the single-seaters arrive at the corner. In Dromo’s project, Turn 11, which leads into the Monumental, had been designed with entirely adverse camber. In the configuration that was built, it instead became on-camber. "Going from a deliberately off-camber corner to an on-camber corner changes the available grip and, above all, the dynamics with which the driver arrives at the Monumental. It is different from what we wanted."

The original idea was precise: to put the driver under pressure before the Monumental, creating consequences in the following corners too. "If I design a track with little grip, with Turn 11 leading into the Monumental and being difficult because it is off-camber, I make it possible for drivers to make a mistake on entry to the Monumental and, when they arrive at Turn 13, to contest the overtake."

The role of the asphalt

Then there is the issue of the asphalt. Dromo specialises precisely in the study and construction of circuit surfaces, and argues that the final result differed from the original intentions in this respect too.

"If I have to design a track, I first need to understand how the car works, how the tyre works and the level of stress I need to have."

The Madring was meant to have specific characteristics, also in light of its limited use during the year. According to Dromo, however, the treatment carried out before the Grand Prix changed the level of grip compared with the baseline on which the project had been developed.

"They water-blasted the whole track, removing the bitumen on top." At the Monumental, however, the work was reportedly carried out by hand, because the steep banking made it problematic to use the vehicle normally employed, which even risked overturning.

To show how every single detail had been considered, the Italian then offered a further detail concerning the Monumental: "The corner is inclined towards the south and, like a solar panel facing in that direction, it can have different thermal behaviour from the rest of the asphalt. It is one of the variables we had considered in the project."

A difference in temperature and grip can affect tyre behaviour, but Dromo does not attribute graining to a single factor: surface, geometry, temperatures and car management must be considered together.

"During the development stages, we studied more aggressive solutions, but the decisive shift was from 35% to 24% banking: with the characteristics that were emerging for the 2026 single-seaters, we had identified a prolonged high-g section, of around 4.5 seconds, and preferred to reduce the inclination."

On this very subject, Dromo said it had worked continuously on the loads transmitted to the tyres and chassis, adapting the project to the evolution of the 2026 single-seaters.

A track is not simply the line that appears on Google Maps. It is the combination of geometry, gradients, camber, surface, grip, tyres and the characteristics of the cars that must race on it. For this reason, according to Dromo, simply saying that the Madring seen in 2026 is the one designed by the Italian company tells only part of the story. The shape remained almost the same. The dynamics, according to those who conceived that track, did not.

We thank Jarno Zaffelli and Studio Dromo for their courtesy and availability during the interview. Partial reproduction of this exclusive content is permitted provided the author (Giuseppe Cianci) and Formula1.it are credited, with a link to the original content.

Photo: Madring

Major effort to address some of the MCL40’s technical limitations

McLaren’s objective was not to beat Russell and Antonelli in Baku, but to get closer to them. Conceptually, the MCL40 was born to be competitive on slow circuits: it has a shorter wheelbase than the other cars, while its gear ratios are believed to have been selected specifically to maximise the car’s potential at more technical venues, and therefore on tracks with short straights.

With that in mind, even though Norris endured a difficult weekend and was battling towards the lower end of the top 10, largely because of his poor qualifying performance, seeing Piastri fight for the podium on a fast street circuit such as Baku was far from a bad result. Unfortunately, the Alpines then spoiled the reigning world champion’s race, and Piastri’s error delivered the final blow, turning a solid weekend into a debacle.

The result does not do justice to the papaya team

McLaren will now be licking its wounds and trying to pick up the pieces in order to return to competitiveness immediately in Malaysia, but Azerbaijan contains more positives than the result would suggest. The vase is not broken at all. The MCL40 has taken an important step forward and, despite technical limitations that prevent it from matching Mercedes on the straights, its performance has improved. That will surely provide further impetus for growth throughout the Woking outfit. The zero points certainly do not do it justice.

Cover and in-article photos by Peter Kiss / WHYOUT Images

On paper, all the ingredients were there for something different. Once the 2026 cars took to the track, however, the reality proved considerably more complicated. The race offered limited spectacle, with just four overtakes, above all highlighting the cars’ difficulties in following closely and finding genuine opportunities to attack.

Inevitably, discussions about the circuit’s future began in the hours following the Grand Prix, with the track set to remain on the calendar until 2035. There has been talk of the need to alter certain sections of the layout, with criticism directed primarily at those who designed the circuit, as the Madring layout quickly came under scrutiny.

But how much of what we saw during the Madrid weekend actually corresponds to the original project?

That was precisely the question from which we started. Formula1.it spoke exclusively to Dromo, the Italian company that designed the Madring and worked on the circuit’s development before its supervisory relationship was terminated in September 2025.

The result was a long conversation in which Jarno Zaffelli explained every detail of a project that proved far more complex than it might appear from simply looking at the circuit plan.

Dromo’s position is clear: the circuit plan is the one designed by the Italian company, but a project is not merely a line viewed from above. Three-dimensional geometry, cambers, transitions, kerbs and run-off areas all contribute to determining how a track behaves, and several of these elements are said to have subsequently been changed.

Asphalt, camber, gradients, kerbs, run-off areas and even surface preparation are just some of the aspects over which Dromo raises important questions. Added to these is another crucial variable: the characteristics of the new 2026 cars and energy management which, according to the designers, further altered the conditions around which the circuit had been developed.

It is a story we have chosen to tell from the beginning.

Is the Madring seen during Formula 1’s first Spanish Grand Prix really the circuit designed by Dromo? Yes, when viewed in plan. But the plan alone is not enough: according to those who designed the track, what was ultimately built features important differences from the original intentions.

"Is the track as we designed it? Absolutely, yes. If you look at it vertically, the plan is the one we designed. But a track is not just its plan," Jarno Zaffelli told us. The issue, however, is said to lie in everything that happened afterwards.

"We created that layout from scratch and we know how to do these things. The problem, however, is that when you are dealing with projects as big as Formula 1, there are many people who get involved: the FIA tells you one thing, Formula 1 tells you another and we, as designers, are always very reluctant, after making a decision, to accept a change without first understanding the overall logic behind it."

"I’ll give you an example: when we left the supervision contract in September 2025, we had not yet started laying the asphalt and, as happens in every project, methodologies, technical details and proprietary know-how follow precise development stages and a contractual framework."

"After we left the supervision contract, the project continued to evolve and in several areas the configuration that was built no longer corresponds to the design intention with which we developed it. The plan remains recognisable, but a track is not just its plan. I will continue to put my name to it because I have nothing to hide and I know we did the best possible job within the limits we had been given."

To understand the story, however, we need to go back a few years. Contrary to what the images of the IFEMA area might suggest, the Italian designers never had a completely blank sheet of paper on which to create the track – quite the opposite.

The layout had to coexist with existing roads or those already planned as part of the area’s development, as well as with the Plan Especial planned for the Valdebebas area.

"The main objective set by the organisers for this track was for it to wind around the IFEMA exhibition halls precisely because they had to be showcased. When we arrived, the first concept called for the pit building to be in the north, right where Formula 1 believed nothing had been developed."

"Essentially, F1 had created a project with a straight, a big Indianapolis-style sweeping corner and then another straight entering the tunnel and returning, with only a chicane to create a braking point."

"What they did not know, however, was that there was a major problem. Even before Covid, what is still called the Plan Especial had been approved in the Valdebebas area: an urban development plan setting out that IFEMA halls, ancillary buildings for other purposes, a large number of car parks and the roads to reach those areas would have to be built there."

"There is nothing secret about this because it is a public plan, which everyone knows about and can consult online, where you can also see the images with the halls overlaid that we then removed from the final project. That does not mean they would not have been there, but rather that at that time they had not yet been built."

According to ElDiario.es, as early as 30 July 2024 there was talk of a figure of €47.5 million, with most of the sum intended for the construction of three new halls at the exhibition site, which were then expected to house facilities such as the paddock or workshops.

Photo: studiodromo.it

Halls 11 and 12 had an estimated cost of €10,371,585 each, while Hall 14 was expected to require an investment of almost €15 million. Added to this were more than €2.5 million for a new heavy-vehicle car park and more than €3 million for urban development works.

Looking at Dromo’s plans, it is clear that everything had already been scheduled, including buildings and technical areas that are still not present in Madrid today but will soon be built in the future.

Continuing on this subject, Zaffelli added: "We were asked to use exclusively existing roads, so as not to create too many that would then remain unused during the year. The only exception granted to us concerned the Monumental section from Turn 10 to Turn 13."

"People think we had a blank sheet of paper because they do not know that half the city still had to be built at that time, to the extent that a large part of our work was the creation of a genuine exhibition district, the one to the north, which has still not been built today."

"That was our real blank sheet of paper, obviously in plan. We were then able to make a couple of changes, but since we could not build things that would not be used during the year, we had to adapt. The only freedom was being able to create the Monumental area, because it was in an area where no other construction was planned and we were therefore freer from constraints."

"Even there, however, the difficulty was using the full creative process, typically Italian, needed to work within highly restrictive constraints and build a track with balls. When the drivers went out on Thursday, they were shocked and, on Friday and Saturday, when they ran at full power in practice, they said it was a fantastic track."

Another unknown further complicated the work: Formula 1’s new technical regulations. When the layout began to take shape, the 2026 cars were still being defined. Dromo therefore says it worked alongside the FIA and Formula 1 while the characteristics of the cars continued to change.

"Try to imagine being a client who has to spend hundreds of millions of euros to build a racing circuit, referring to regulations that do not yet exist, or worse still, relying exclusively on the rules. When designing a circuit, you must never look exclusively at the regulations; you have to create the layout for the client’s business and for the type of racing that will be held there."

The break in 2025

The turning point came in September 2025, when Dromo left the supervision contract. From that point onwards, the configuration that was built contained several changes from Dromo’s reference project.

"After we left supervision, the project continued to evolve and some choices no longer correspond to our solution."

Dromo cites a specific example: the section between Turns 1 and 5. "For us, that was a section that had to be built entirely in asphalt, in all layers. As soon as they removed us, they decided to build it in concrete, which has completely different stiffness and a different level of flatness."

But the issue is said not to concern only the construction of the roadbed. Camber, gradients and asphalt treatment are also said to have been changed from the original intentions. Dromo gives a very specific example: "We had designed that track with continuously variable crossfall.

For example, Turn 11, the one leading into the Monumental, was completely off-camber in our project; in the built configuration it became on-camber."

"If I design a track with low grip, with Turn 11 leading into the Monumental and made difficult because it is off-camber, I ensure that drivers are inclined to make mistakes on entry so that, when they reach Turn 13, they can fight for an overtake on a low-grip surface.

But if you change the asphalt and change the entry geometry, the dynamics are already different from what we designed. Then, during the weekend, the issue of Power Unit management was also added: the FIA document provided for Alt 1 mode from T5 to T22, from 1,500 to 5,100 metres, meaning 3.6km of the 5.416km lap. But that is an additional factor: the geometric differences already existed and were enough to change our design intention."

The contractual issue

During our long conversation, an even more delicate issue was then raised concerning the contractual relationship with IFEMA. Zaffelli focused above all on the licence agreement, which was separate from the supervision relationship: "Modifying a project does not automatically create a new and independent chain of rights."

"The licence did not give IFEMA an unlimited position over Dromo IP Rights, nor over their subsequent versions, modifications and derivatives; uses requiring our consent did not become unrestricted simply by assigning them to a third party. And today, it is not only us saying this, but also the Cologne judges who examined the case. The use, versions, modifications and derivatives of Dromo IP Rights remain within the scope of the licence and, where provided for, require our authorisation."

According to findings from the forensic investigation in the German proceedings, Dromo materials were already present in the systems of the Tilke companies involved in the proceedings in February 2025, several months before Dromo left supervision. "This is the chronological fact that matters to us: our materials were already there while we were still involved in the project. I am not attributing further motives or responsibilities here: those are for the courts."

This is, naturally, the account provided by Dromo, within a matter involving contractual relationships and decisions taken by several parties. The Cologne decision is interim and has been appealed, but its reasoning expressly addresses the limits of the licence and the principle that IFEMA could not transfer to third parties more rights than it had acquired.

One thing, however, is asserted strongly: Dromo does not disown the Madring. On the contrary, as already stated, Zaffelli has nothing to hide because he is aware that his team did the best possible job within the constraints imposed upon it.

The Italian designers’ argument is another one: the drawing remained theirs, but some of the elements that determine the track’s real-world behaviour are said to have changed. It is precisely by examining the details of Turn 5, Turn 11, the Monumental, the asphalt and the gradients that one understands how great the difference can be between designing a circuit and actually building it.

We thank Jarno Zaffelli and Studio Dromo for their kindness and availability during the interview. Partial reproduction of this exclusive content is permitted provided the author (Giuseppe Cianci) and Formula1.it are credited, with a link to the original content.

Photo: Madring

The margin he was able to put over his rivals was enormous. He held an advantage of more than eight tenths over Ferrari and McLaren. In the race, he then pulled clear in the early stages of the GP thanks to extraordinarily competitive and consistent pace, but also the battles unfolding among the pack behind him.

Verstappen nearly ruined Russell’s weekend

Then came the Safety Car and, with the field bunched up, George Russell could no longer pull away. So much so that Verstappen came close to spoiling what had been an almost perfect weekend for the team-mate of championship leader Andrea Kimi Antonelli, who finished fifth in Baku and still leads the standings by 66 points.

Russell came close to going from absolute dominator to narrowly avoiding a disastrous second place. The 196-millisecond gap between George and Max is the smallest margin ever recorded at the finish between first and second place over the past 20 years. To find a smaller one, we must go back to 2002, when, in the much-discussed Austrian GP, Barrichello suddenly slowed to allow Michael Schumacher to pass him on the finish line and take second place. The gap then was 182 milliseconds.

Possible causes

What contributed to this scenario? He was probably close to being betrayed by the layout of the Baku circuit. In the first part of the race, Russell was able to dictate the pace, immediately pulling away from the pack and taking advantage of the battles between the drivers. In the second stint, however, Verstappen was always able to remain in his slipstream and, once the Dutchman got within overtake mode range, it became impossible for the Briton to pull away. The second theory concerns the Soft tyres, which may have been less effective on George’s car than on the Dutchman’s. It may also have been a combination of the two factors.

We nevertheless believe it was being in the W17’s slipstream that made the four-time Red Bull champion so dangerous. Antonelli provided supporting evidence: despite having the incredible Mercedes at his disposal, he struggled greatly to dispatch slower rivals when he was caught in a DRS train during the opening stages. Later on, however, he always made overtakes with disarming ease whenever he found himself in a one-on-one battle.

Cover photo by Finlay Williams / WHYOUT Images

Interior photo by Peter Kiss / WHYOUT Images

From that perspective, the true value of Russell's weekend lies in proving that he can cope with the pressure of being the driver to beat, turning a race he absolutely had to win, given the starting position of his team-mate and championship leader, into a demonstration of control and maturity. While the pace needed to fight for the title had never truly been in question, Baku added perhaps an even more important element from a championship perspective: the knowledge that he can withstand Antonelli's pressure, having managed the imposing presence of Max Verstappen behind him.

Perfection was not confined to pole position, but extended to race management

Pole position had already been an important signal, firstly because Kimi Antonelli made an error on his first run in Q1, but above all because, in a Formula 1 in which the smallest margins can decide the grid order and turn a single mistake into a lost position, Russell had put together the lap required at the decisive moment. That gave him the opportunity to approach the race from the ideal position in a Mercedes that proved stronger than its rivals. But it was Sunday that gave his performance a deeper meaning, because starting at the front is one thing; staying there for the whole race knowing that Verstappen is behind you is another.

The Dutchman was never close enough to mount a genuine attack, except in the closing stages thanks to the safety cars, but his presence in the mirrors still represented constant pressure. Russell knew he could give nothing away and, above all, could not turn a minor slip into an opportunity for his rival.

In such a situation, the difference does not necessarily come from finding a few extra hundredths, but from being able to maintain the same level of concentration for dozens of laps. Russell demonstrated that concentration by stringing together fast laps, even though they were not necessary for the race result.

It is precisely this aspect that makes the Baku result particularly interesting. Russell had already shown on several occasions that he possesses the pace needed to run at the front, just as he had already demonstrated that he can put together high-level qualifying sessions and races. The question, particularly when the stakes rise, is instead about his ability to turn that speed into a complete performance, without leaving room for mistakes or lapses in concentration — something that had characterised his weekends before Azerbaijan.

In Baku, however, none of that happened: Russell built his advantage without giving Verstappen a genuine opportunity to get back into the race, and managed every phase with a consistency that could, in the long term, be worth even more than the result itself. The Grand Chelem is therefore not merely the snapshot of a perfect Sunday, but the consequence of an entire weekend in which the Mercedes driver brought together performance, management and clarity of thought in a season that has proved the opposite of what he would have wanted.

The potential turning point is above all mental

The debate over Russell's chances of becoming world champion has long revolved around two questions: how competitive can he be when simply being quick is no longer enough, and how much Antonelli's unexpected speed has effectively put him under pressure. His talent and ability to take the car to the limit have never appeared to be the main issue. Yet, over most weekends, he has been behind Antonelli, to the point that people began to think that perhaps the Italian driver was getting more out of the car. In that sense, the next step — the one separating a driver capable of winning races from one able to sustain a title challenge — concerns managing those moments when pressure becomes an integral part of performance, and Russell has not always shown that he can handle it.

A world championship is built through dozens of situations in which it is not enough to have the most competitive car or set the fastest lap. Rather, it is about knowing when to attack and when to preserve, accepting a less favourable result when necessary and, above all, preventing pressure from turning a situation under control into a mistake. It is a dimension that often does not emerge in the numbers, but it can become decisive over the course of a season.

That is why Baku could represent an interesting stage in Russell's development, not so much because he beat both Verstappen and Antonelli over the same weekend, or because he secured a Grand Chelem for the first time, but because he handled the situation without ever giving the impression of being overwhelmed by it. Instead, he showed that he knew he had the means to win it. The Mercedes driver did not simply defend first place: he constructed a race in which his rival never truly had the opportunity to challenge him.

And this is where the meaning of the victory goes beyond the result, because there is a subtle difference between being in front and truly feeling in control of the race, but in a championship it can become enormous. In Baku, Russell gave the impression of belonging to the latter category, managing the pressure without allowing it to become a destabilising factor, but rather turning it into a source of confidence.

The title will not be won in Baku, but belief can be born here

Of course, it would be premature to turn one good weekend after difficult months into certainty for the remainder of the season, given that he is 66 points behind Antonelli. A Grand Chelem does not erase the difficulties encountered previously and, above all, does not award any world title.

Nevertheless, there is something Baku can leave behind that goes beyond the points scored: Russell's ability to be quick, precise and capable of managing the different phases of a race at the same time. Above all, he faced a situation in which the pressure was clear without allowing it to affect him. For a driver aspiring to the title, even if the gap is substantial, that is far from a secondary factor, because the knowledge that he can control a race even when the most dangerous benchmark is behind him can become an important asset in the decisive moments of the season.

The first Grand Chelem of Russell's career will therefore remain a historic achievement in his career, but it could carry even greater significance because of what it has given him. In Baku, he did not simply prove that he can win: he proved that he can carry the weight of a victory without losing his clarity. We will see whether this weekend represented a turning point for him, considering the words he used in interviews, in which he effectively maintained that he had found the key to understanding the car, something he had not had until now.

The Anglo-French team, revitalised by the adoption of the ultra-dominant Mercedes Power Unit, has amassed an excellent haul of points so far, allowing it to fight for fifth place in the constructors’ championship alongside the season’s other surprise package, Racing Bulls.

The double retirement suffered in Azerbaijan was a significant blow, particularly as it was caused by the serious error of one of its drivers, Franco Colapinto, who ruined not only his own race but also that of team-mate Pierre Gasly.

The damaging media furore

This racing incident had two immediate consequences: on one hand, the understandable anger of Alpine team principal Flavio Briatore, who threatened severe disciplinary action against the Argentine.

On the other, there were fresh and regrettable negative incidents directed at everyone who criticised Colapinto’s reckless move, a situation unpleasant enough to prompt the Enstone team to issue another statement condemning these acts of rudeness and abuse.

It is not yet known what action Briatore will take against the driver: he is unlikely to be dropped, given that the 23-year-old from Pilar had his contract renewed until 2027 at the end of August.

Colapinto earned his contract extension thanks to the highly convincing performances he has produced in this, his second season at Alpine, and there are many past examples of drivers, more or less experienced, making similar errors—incidents that have merely punctuated even highly successful careers.

What will weigh more heavily on Colapinto’s future?

What is new, and highly negative, is the mechanism behind the offensive media furore that follows every development involving the Argentine driver and frequently forces Alpine to distance itself from improper behaviour towards the team itself, other drivers and members of the paddock.

What could ultimately cost Colapinto his career may not be his performances or his mistakes, but rather teams’ desire to keep away from the unwanted situations linked to all the controversies that regularly surround the Argentine driver’s name.

To address the issue, the championship has decided to travel to Malaysia and the Kuala Lumpur circuit, a familiar venue for the world championship. Although the track will not be Sakhir, the event will still be called the Bahrain GP in Malaysia. As always, the weekend will be broadcast on TV and streaming by Sky. Here is the schedule for the upcoming weekend.

Bahrain GP schedule

Friday 2 October 
Free Practice 1: 06:30
Free Practice 2: 10:00

Saturday 3 October 
Free Practice 3: 06:30
Qualifying: 10:00

Sunday 4 October 
Race: 07:00

Bahrain GP: how to watch on TV and streaming

The entire Bahrain GP in Malaysia weekend, like every round of the world championship, will be broadcast live on Sky TV and streamed on SkyGo. Free practice, qualifying and the race will be available in detail on Sky Sport F1 HD and Sky Sport Uno. Here is the schedule:

Friday – Free Practice
FP1 (Friday 2 October, 06:30): live on Sky Sport F1 HD; streaming on SkyGo or Now TV
FP2 (Friday 2 October, 10:00): live on Sky Sport F1 HD; streaming on SkyGo or Now TV

Saturday – Free Practice and Qualifying
FP3: (Saturday 3 October, 06:30): live on Sky Sport F1 HD and Sky Sport Uno; streaming on SkyGo or Now TV
Q1, Q2 and Q3 (Saturday 3 October, 10:00): live on Sky Sport F1 HD and Sky Sport Uno; streaming on SkyGo or Now TV

Sunday – Race
Race (Sunday 4 October, 07:00): live on Sky Sport F1 HD and Sky Sport Uno; streaming on SkyGo or Now TV 

The Grand Prix live on formula1.it

You can follow the weekend sessions live on formula1.it through the dedicated qualifying news article and the live race page, featuring statistics, infographics and images from the circuit. Follow us on X for all the latest updates in real time.

Cover photo x.com

Internal photo x.com

The leading pack splits

Baku qualifying, however, came as a bolt from the blue for the top teams. Russell’s performance not only proved us wrong but, worse still, dealt the teams such a blow that it brought down the entire house of cards they had been building.

Seeing Russell gain three to four tenths over Ferrari and McLaren between Turns 12 and 16, before taking another three to four tenths on the main straight alone, says a great deal about the potential of Mercedes.

In the race, in our view, George only risked losing first place to Verstappen because Max managed the Soft C5 compound better. Perhaps things would have been different on another tyre.

[[[og]]]

The bigger picture

If Russell’s qualifying performance is set aside, the situation returns more or less to normal. Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren are separated by around 150 thousandths. Then comes an excellent Alpine, around seven tenths behind the Prancing Horse. Further back are Williams, Haas and VCARB, covered by three tenths. Audi is behind, alone at 3.2 seconds off Mercedes. Aston Martin and Cadillac complete the standings, both around four seconds adrift.

Looking at the gaps between team-mates, the widest margins are between Russell and Antonelli, Perez and Bottas, and Alonso and Stroll. All the others can be described as ‘’fairly close’’.

Cover photo by Finlay Williams / WHYOUT Images

The caution was caused by a crash that put Cadillac driver Valtteri Bottas out of the race on lap 51, when he hit the barriers at Turn 15.

The seemingly routine racing incident, which was overshadowed by the conclusion of the Baku race, may nevertheless conceal a surprising aspect that emerges from the Finnish driver’s own comments.

Bottas reveals an unexpected scenario

Speaking after the race, Bottas said:

“Today was a long and difficult day. We didn’t have the pace and I was only able to fight Fernando, which cost us some time. Towards the end of the race, I locked up on the way into Turn 1 and ran wide, so I think the systems got a bit confused because of the extra distance I had covered. Then I got a huge super clip at Turn 15 and, when I braked, only the front was working and it seemed the rear was no longer harvesting energy.”

What the driver of the American team, powered by the Ferrari Power Unit, has described is deeply concerning.

It brings to mind Leclerc’s comments from the start of the season regarding the management software that “interprets” and “reacts” to what the driver does, managing energy in ways that can sometimes be surprising.

It also recalls the braking problems suffered by several teams, especially Ferrari. Without resorting to conspiracy theories, it is clear that this is a new phenomenon linked to the use of these Power Units.

Who controls the Power Units?

If Bottas’s comments are confirmed, this would be a case of a driver reduced to a mere passenger in his own car.

The Power Unit management software, misled by the extra metres covered as a result of the error and focused on optimising the available energy, delivers power when it is not needed and suddenly removes the driver’s engine-braking support altogether.

It does not take a particularly vivid imagination to envisage scenarios in which the outcome of yesterday’s incident is far more tragic than a simple retirement.

This extremely dangerous scenario should be investigated more thoroughly in light of the exceptionally high safety standards adopted by the FIA over many years and, in this writer’s view, cannot be dismissed as a simple racing incident:

The four-ringed marque introduced a host of new features, effectively fielding an R26-B with a new front wing, new nose and a revised floor, as evidenced by the far more numerous and aggressive slots ahead of the rear wheels.

But that was not all: the entire sidepod aerodynamic concept was revised, bringing back the "waterslide" concept – upper channels that direct air towards the rear of the car, typical of cars built to the previous regulations.

In doing so, Audi took considerable inspiration from the Red Bull RB26, while further exaggerating the shape of the sidepod inlets, which remain a distinctive feature of the Hinwil technicians.

The upgrades do not appear to have worked

However, the numerous upgrades do not appear to have worked particularly well, judging by the disappointing qualifying session and anonymous Saturday race.

What is surprising is that at Monza, another power- and traction-sensitive circuit, the previous version of the R26 performed well in qualifying, with Bortoleto 11th and Hulkenberg 13th, both very close to reaching Q3.

At Baku, the power unit and hybrid management play a crucial role; excellent mechanical traction is also essential to put the power down out of the slow corners.

However, aerodynamic efficiency is needed to minimise the penalty along the very long high-speed section that includes the pit straight, without sacrificing sufficient downforce to bring the tyres up to temperature and remain quick through the more twisty sections.

The difficulty in getting the tyres up to temperature affected every team during Friday qualifying in Baku, but Audi's situation was probably made particularly difficult by its relative lack of familiarity with the aerodynamic characteristics of the upgraded car.

Indeed, Audi carried out extensive aerodynamic testing during free practice, fitting the so-called sensor-laden "rakes" to establish whether the work conducted in CFD and the wind tunnel was reflected on track.

Tyre difficulties, but not only

It is possible that such a radical aerodynamic change completely disrupted the car's aerodynamic maps, making it extremely difficult for the Swiss team's engineers to get the car into the correct temperature window.

But that is not all. At a circuit like Baku, available power matters, and it is in the final part of the lap that Audi pays a clear price in energy management compared with, for example, Lawson's Racing Bulls. It accelerates markedly better both out of Turn 12 and between Turns 15 and 16, before the final straight, where traction remains crucial. One could say that hybrid management is not at the level of Red Bull Powertrains, or perhaps that the strategy of using energy in the first sector did not pay off.

It is difficult to know whether the R26-B will be definitively rejected, because Baku is probably not the most suitable circuit at which to assess such a major aerodynamic overhaul. What is certain is that there will be plenty of work to do at Hinwil to understand which direction to take.

Red Bull capitalises on fresh unit, Russell holds on. Ferrari the 'fourth force'

Verstappen, despite starting from P8, was able to make rapid progress. He passed McLaren and Ferrari before setting his sights on Russell. Before the Safety Car, Ferrari could be considered the fourth-quickest team, but a number of incidents played in its favour, allowing it to benefit from Norris's retirement and Piastri's mistake and continue to pick up some more points in the constructors' championship. During Ferrari's first stint on Softs, Leclerc and Hamilton probably suffered temperature issues with the C5 tyres. The tyres were switched off, according to Lewis himself. Around lap 10, the Ferrari pair were lapping around a second slower than Russell. The situation improved over the next four to five laps, the tyres came alive and the lap times then settled at the level of the frontrunners.

George claimed a hugely important victory. It all looked straightforward for him, but the Safety Car brought out by Albon threw everything into doubt. The fact Russell managed to beat Verstappen by just 196 thousandths says a great deal about how demanding the final 10 laps were for him.

Antonelli, meanwhile, produced a fine race. He probably could not have done any better. Unfortunately, unlike at Monza, the DRS trains significantly slowed his early recovery. Fifth place can be considered a success given that he started from P16. His result was heavily affected by the mistake he made yesterday. Piastri's error and the incident involving the Alpines and Norris helped him secure a few extra points.

Strategy recap

There was little to invent in strategic terms. The decision that dictated the entire race was the choice of compound at the start of the GP. Today, Pirelli deserves credit: yesterday it spoke highly of the Soft and saw it as the outright protagonist of today's race. It was not that we did not trust them, but, considering the risk of a Safety Car and the greater consistency of the Hard, we would have opted for the harder compound — wrongly, in this case.

The Soft, however, proved highly consistent and as quick as the Medium, if not even more competitive. The fact that the drivers who started on it covered more than half the GP says it all. It took the Safety Car to encourage drivers to pit; otherwise, who knows how many more laps they would have carried on for.

It must be said that, given the high likelihood of a Safety Car, nobody wanted to stop at that stage. They tried to stretch the tyres to the limit… In a sense, the SC was only a matter of time. Those who started on the Soft finished the race on the Medium and vice versa. Nothing could have been easier today. Retirements: Bottas, Colapinto, Gasly, Norris, Albon, Alonso and Stroll.

Pirelli's comments with Dario Marrafuschi

Pirelli's motorsport director commented on the tyre performance after the race: "The race broadly confirmed what we had predicted. The Soft and Medium compounds proved to be the most effective choices, to the extent that the grid was split almost equally between the two options at the start."

"As for tyre behaviour, the extremely limited degradation observed during the previous days was also confirmed during the Grand Prix. The C4 and C5 showed very low levels of wear, with no significant graining. This allowed drivers to maintain a high pace for much of the race. In these conditions, the Soft offered an advantage in terms of grip and driver confidence, particularly noticeable on a demanding circuit such as Baku, to the point that it proved to be the most competitive compound in the race. A clear demonstration was provided by the Red Bull pair, who, in identical cars but on reversed strategies, saw the driver on the red-walled tyre perform better than his team-mate", the Italian manager continued.

"Overall, the drivers were able to push throughout the race, needing only to pay attention to bringing the front axle back up to temperature after the restarts that followed the neutralisations. Finally, the Hard found no place in race strategies because the performance offered by the other two compounds never made it necessary to turn to a more conservative solution", said Dario Marrafuschi.

On the streets of the City of Winds, Red Bull humiliated Ferrari on the straights, with the RB26 able to swallow up both SF-26s and, with Max Verstappen, fight Mercedes for victory right down to the final metre in one of Formula 1’s most power-demanding Grands Prix.

A considerable slight, given that the power unit driving the Milton Keynes car was essentially built by an organisation that has existed for five years but has only eight months of activity as an independent engine manufacturer.

Eight months eclipse a history stretching back almost 80 years

Red Bull Powertrains, in just eight months, has put its maiden effort on track in a regulatory cycle with entirely unknown parameters, unexpectedly claiming the mantle of the best internal combustion engine.

Eight months of Red Bull Powertrains’ existence have now eclipsed almost 80 years of experience at Maranello in producing high-performance engines for road and track.

An excellence which, for founder Enzo Ferrari, was a source of pride, encapsulated in the famous phrase:
“Aerodynamics are compensation for those who cannot get horsepower out of an engine.”

It is objectively difficult to accept that Ferrari has produced a deficient power unit in a regulatory cycle in which the engine is so important.

Curiously, the Baku slap comes in the week in which Christian Horner, the main architect and driving force behind the creation of the Anglo-Austrian team’s engine division, has put forward his candidacy for a role in the management of the Italian team, which has long lacked a car capable of consistently fighting for victories and challenging for the World Championship.

The start

When the lights went out, Russell retained the lead while Leclerc suffered wheelspin and was passed by Piastri, who moved up to second. Norris climbed to fourth, with Verstappen sixth. Antonelli was 17th. Looking at tyre choices, the Mercedes pair were both on mediums, while Ferrari opted for softs; Red Bull split strategies, with Hadjar on softs and Verstappen on mediums.

Red Bull stars – Russell builds a gap, but Albon spoils the party

The opening laps were flat-out for Verstappen and Hadjar, who sliced through their rivals with remarkable ease: by lap eight, they were already third and fourth respectively, not far behind Piastri, who was already trying to defend. Charles Leclerc did not have the pace, already almost three seconds behind the group ahead. Meanwhile, further back, Antonelli had climbed to 14th, while Stroll retired with issues on his AMR26. The positions remained unchanged for several laps, until Hamilton passed Norris on lap 17 to move into sixth. Verstappen, meanwhile, was unable to get past Piastri, who was driving very well in this opening phase of the race.

Meanwhile, George Russell opened up a gap of as much as 10 seconds over the driver of car number 81, consistently setting fast laps. His pace was clearly superior to the competition, but on lap 30 of 51 it was interrupted by Alex Albon's crash: after locking up, he hit the barriers at Turn 6. The driver was unharmed, but the Safety Car was required to remove the car. All the drivers therefore made their pit stops, with the positions unchanged.

A double restart

Verstappen managed to pass Piastri to move into second, but slightly further back a multi-car incident was triggered by Colapinto's Alpine. Gasly and Norris were out, while Antonelli escaped by millimetres. The second Safety Car was deployed. At the second restart, Russell retained the lead with Verstappen in pursuit. Behind them, Piastri defended from Hadjar, but on the following lap, at Turn 1, the Australian ran wide and dramatically dropped to 15th: in just a few laps, it had become pitch black for McLaren. Hadjar therefore moved up to third.

With fewer than 10 laps remaining, Antonelli passed Hamilton to take fifth, while Verstappen remained within a second of Russell. A yellow flag caused by Bottas, who hit the wall just before the long straight leading to the finish, set up a sprint to the line between Verstappen and Russell, but the number 63 brought home victory in a race in which he was clearly the best driver on track. A double podium for Red Bull, with Hadjar returning to brilliant form after his injury. Leclerc was fourth, successfully defending against Antonelli's attacks. Lindblad, Bearman, Ocon and Sainz also performed well, all finishing in the top 10. Below is the full classification.

Cover photo by Peter Kiss / WHYOUT images

Click here to access the live coverage of the 2026 Azerbaijan Grand Prix

Baku is a street circuit, but no other venue on the calendar combines racing through a city with overtaking opportunities and unpredictability on the level offered by the Azerbaijani track. The GP taking place today, Saturday 26 September, is sure to be thrilling. Russell starts from pole, followed by Leclerc, Piastri and Hadjar . The first two rows are entirely unprecedented, even in a season as crazy as 2026. 

Verstappen and Hamilton are paying the price for issues that emerged during qualifying, while Antonelli, the victim of an error at Turn 1 in Q1, is forced to start from P16. After his comeback at Monza , hopes and expectations are for a repeat... Can he do it? Let's find out together. Formation lap at 13:00.

Follow the live coverage on our Twitter profile.

Official event hashtag: #AzerbaijanGP

Other links for the 2026 Azerbaijan GP

Circuit guide and preview of the 2026 Azerbaijan GP

We have told you in every possible way that Mercedes is strong. In a normal race, without a Safety Car, we expect Russell to set the pace and control the race entirely on his own. Fortunately, though, this is Baku, a street circuit where the long main straight will certainly provide some overtaking opportunities. So, with Antonelli starting 16th after an error in Q1, we can say the spectacle is guaranteed.

Pirelli’s strategic recommendations - Baku City Circuit - 51 laps

Before sharing our own view, though, let us hear from Pirelli ahead of the race: “The weather conditions were different compared with practice. Air and track temperatures were lower, and we had fairly strong winds, which contributed to making the cars less stable, especially at the rear.”

“The indications gathered so far confirm that a one-stop strategy remains the most competitive option. Combinations involving the Medium and Soft appear particularly effective, given the limited level of wear. The potential use of the Hard in the second stint could represent an alternative worth considering in the event of an early-race neutralisation,” concludes Pirelli motorsport director Dario Marrafuschi.

The risk of neutralisations shuffles the pack

Here in Baku, perhaps for the first time this year, our view differs slightly from Marrafuschi’s, though it is not too far removed. In our opinion, the best strategy is to rely on two sets of the harder compounds rather than use the softer combination. It changes the race outlook slightly, but ultimately the core concepts behind it are essentially the same.

The Soft C5 offers a small advantage off the line and has shown good consistency, but we believe using it in the opening stages of the race could be a risk. This is solely because of the ever-present threat of a Safety Car or other neutralisations in Baku. Taking up a grid position on Medium tyres is, in our view, the best choice and, moreover, does not rule out using the Soft at the end.

Starting on the C4 Medium will not bring a major disadvantage in terms of launch, as the first corner is very close to the start line. Getting away well and avoiding contact is a must in Azerbaijan. Without a Safety Car, there is an opportunity to extend the first stint and, depending on the consistency and feeling achieved, assess whether to finish the race on Hards or persist with a shorter final stint on Softs. Looking at the times set by some drivers on the Hard in practice, we have the impression that the Hard could be the most effective choice.

In Antonelli’s case, however, we are a little more torn. For the same reasons, starting from P16, Kimi could consider fitting the Hard from the outset, allowing him to exploit an early SC to get ahead of those who opted to start on Softs and extend the first stint in order to get as close as possible to the podium before embarking on the final run. The Bolognese driver will attempt to repeat his Monza result and, if his race pace is as strong as it appears, it should not be as impossible as people think.

All Pirelli compounds represent a good option for today’s race. We simply believe we could see a race geared more towards the use of the Hard compounds than the softer tyres.

Qualifying for the Azerbaijan Grand Prix offered several interesting insights. While Mercedes had been expected to shine, nobody could have imagined such a crushing performance against the opposition.

The W17's devastating statement of strength

The most striking figure is undoubtedly the devastating pole position delivered by George Russell.

The more than eight-tenths advantage the Mercedes driver put over the runner-up is a huge blow, especially considering that Charles Leclerc is a genuine specialist around this circuit.

Leclerc almost manages to match the pace in the first sector, but things become extremely difficult as early as the second sector.

The Monegasque is forced to lift much earlier before every corner to recharge the battery, while Russell appears to have no need to do so at all.

It is as if the SF-26 is constantly on the limit of its available energy and, indeed, after Turn 12 Mercedes comprehensively outclasses its rival in both traction and top speed, reaching Turn 15 up to 10km/h faster and with an advantage of around four tenths.

Russell can therefore lift much earlier and downshift sooner to recharge before the final display of strength.

Then comes the main straight, where the W17 literally leaves the SF-26 behind, outclassing it in traction thanks to its greater available electrical power and gaining the other four tenths that make up the enormous final gap.

Mercedes' performance is a demonstration of the brute strength of its power unit, but not only that, as in every sector the W17 was superior to every other car thanks to a chassis entirely at the service of the power available and capable of putting that power down with maximum efficiency.

Hadjar makes an excellent return in fourth. Major problems for Verstappen

Isack Hadjar's return was an important moment for the French Red Bull driver, both to assess his physical condition and for the inevitable comparison with the performance of Lawson, who replaced him, given that the Anglo-Austrian team has never shown any hesitation in changing the driver alongside Verstappen, even during the season.

The 22-year-old Parisian produced an excellent lap, less than two tenths behind Leclerc, finishing ahead of his team-mate and beating him by more than half a second.

Without taking anything away from the Dutchman, however, something does not add up in his performance, as he complained extensively about the state of charge of his power unit's battery.

This is confirmed by the significant gaps opening up during every acceleration phase, where electrical power plays a leading role. It must also be said that a large delta develops in the tight Turn 5 and 6 chicane, a sign that Hadjar was very effective through that section or that Verstappen made a small mistake.

Hamilton less effective than Leclerc in energy management

As mentioned earlier, Leclerc is a specialist at this circuit, but Hamilton has shown this season that he is up to the task and is often even faster than the Monegasque.

Although Ferrari's number 16 received a slight benefit from a small tow from Hamilton, and although the latter complained that he had no tow to pull him along, the differences between the two drivers lie mainly in hybrid management.
Leclerc produced a truly remarkable first sector, using more energy than his team-mate.

The situation shifts slightly in the second sector, where the seven-time world champion makes greater use of electrical power between Turns 12 and 14, recovering much of the deficit to Leclerc who, as mentioned earlier, tries to recharge the batteries as much as possible before the final run.

The difference in acceleration in the final section suggests that the strategy of Ferrari's number 16 paid off more than that of his team-mate.

The mistake he made at Turn 1 in Q1 compromised his qualifying and changed the course of his weekend. He will nevertheless have the chance to recover from P16 tomorrow. Attempting a Monza-style feat in Baku will be far more complicated, but it is not impossible that he can fight back and once again reach the podium places.

Mercedes go over the top in Baku

The most surprising aspect of qualifying was undoubtedly the performance George Russell managed to extract from his car. The Briton carried eight laps' worth of fuel and tackled Q3 with just one set of tyres, setting the fastest time on his final attempt. Very old tyres and an equally old power unit, nearing the end of its natural life. The eight-tenth gap he put over the second and third-placed drivers — Leclerc and Piastri respectively, separated by one thousandth — sends an alarming message to the rest of the field. The advantage is enormous and merely needs to be managed.

Ferrari and McLaren are close despite two completely different approaches to power unit management. The Woking team are starting to become a very imposing presence in Ferrari's mirrors. The papaya cars, which have recently looked increasingly strong at events held on circuits made up of medium- and low-speed corners, have taken a very significant step forward on fast tracks with the updates brought to Baku, aimed at reducing drag, read here.

A gap too large to sweep under the carpet

Looking at the telemetry, McLaren still have something to refine in terms of energy management compared with Mercedes. Piastri loses three tenths to Russell on the start-finish straight alone. Differences which, if they already appear huge in qualifying, will become even more apparent in the race. McLaren have made enormous strides, but if they want to be Mercedes' main rival in 2027, there is still a long way to go.

Unfortunately, Ferrari can only limit the damage with Leclerc. At Monza, we already saw that engine differences tend to emerge more in the race than in qualifying. So, even though Charles starts second, it will be very difficult for him to defend the position from the McLarens. We would be more than a little surprised if he managed it. Unfortunately, the engine deficit paid by the Maranello team on the straights is too large to be swept under the carpet. Not even here in Baku, the home of carpets, read here, would that be possible.

If Monza has taught us anything, tomorrow will not be an easy race at all for Leclerc and Hamilton. Surprises are welcome.

Cover photo by Finlay Williams / WHYOUT Images

Interior photo by Peter Kiss / WHYOUT Images

graphic by 'GPTempo.com'.