Mercedes’ Australian GP Pace: Analyzing the Advantage Over Rivals

Melbourne delivered on pre-race expectations: Mercedes has demonstrably moved ahead of the competition, with rivals Ferrari, McLaren, and Red Bull estimating the gap to be at least half a second. A significant challenge, though it’s true that the characteristics and current strengths of the Australian track tend to amplify such differences.

This advantage was even more apparent in qualifying, where the W17 clocked a full eight tenths of a second faster than the group comprised of the other three top teams – a group curiously contained within just a tenth of a second of each other. During the race, the picture changed somewhat; Ferrari was the only team able to keep pace with the Silver Arrows, while McLaren fell further behind, hampered by several issues.

The key is that this advantage isn’t based on a single aspect, but involves multiple interconnected areas that reinforce each other. What we have is why, despite sharing the same power unit as McLaren, the margin remains substantial. Of course, it can’t be ignored that the Mercedes engine currently appears to have a slight edge over its rivals, but that’s only part of the story.

The advantage became clear on the flying lap, with only seven MJ (megajoules) allowed by the Federation to reduce the demand for excessive lift and coast, highlighting the importance of not only the thermal engine’s contribution but likewise how energy is used and recovered. This is the first major theme, as Mercedes appears to enjoy an advantage in this area, particularly on fast tracks with few braking zones and limited energy concessions.

When it was time to unleash the full potential of this power unit, the W17 truly took flight, especially on the straights, leaving its rivals far behind. In areas where the most significant derating was observed on Friday, the speed drop on Saturday was much more contained and linear, without the need for excessive lift and coast or sacrificing other parts of the lap.

This suggests that Mercedes has not only perfectly interpreted energy management on a critical track but also that the thermal engine, especially when reaching certain peaks, provides significant support, reducing stress on the MGU-K in the most delicate areas, allowing it to support and reduce turbo lag, particularly for teams like Mercedes who have focused on efficiency.

On a fast track, the combination of these factors created the perfect storm, and it’s important to remember that Mercedes has been working on this PU for years, developing models and building a broader knowledge base than its customers. On this front, there’s an interesting element: to recharge, the W17 doesn’t rely heavily on lift and coast but instead on super-clipping with the wing fully open, reaching the braking point more quickly. This has implications for other qualities of the car.

The current regulations allow teams to recover up to 350 kW during braking or when the accelerator isn’t fully engaged, such as in medium-to-low-speed corners or during lift-and-coast at the complete of straights. Conversely, for safety reasons, the limit for recharging via super-clipping is set at 250 kW.

This is a significant difference, prompting teams to carefully evaluate what and where is most advantageous from an energy management perspective. While Ferrari seems to rely more on lift-and-coast to recover energy, Mercedes is decisively focusing on super-clipping as its primary recharging option, especially during qualifying.

These differences influence performance. Lift-and-coast allows for higher recharging limits, but it also takes time to reach the -350 kW value for safety reasons. This implies a different driving style: significant lift-and-coast means arriving at the braking point with a lower speed, then touching the brakes less during corner entry.

The W17 reasons differently. The tendency is to rely more often on super-clipping and extend the braking phase, bringing the braking point further into the corner, similar to last year. This is a very different approach, and to sustain it while maintaining good cornering speeds – because the risk of understeer is evident – requires an effective chassis and good balance.

This was highlighted by Andrea Stella, McLaren’s Team Principal, who pointed out both the difference in hybrid usage (also due to different shift strategies, which we’ll return to) and how the MCL40 lacks pure aerodynamic load, noting that the W17 is much stronger than it appears in cornering.

These elements, combined, have amplified the strengths of Mercedes on one of the tracks that will likely highlight the pure qualities of the W17. Shanghai, for example, will present a different challenge: the Chinese track has a long straight, but also fast corners and numerous opportunities to recharge the battery, meaning it isn’t among the most energy-demanding circuits of the year.