Why both Mercedes drivers felt “more confident” in F1 Hungarian GP qualifying

But for a snap of oversteer midway through the Hungaroring’s final corner, George Russell could have been on pole for Formula 1’s Hungarian Grand Prix. His last ‘push lap’ ended up just 0.053s slower than surprise polesitter Charles Leclerc for Ferrari.

The picture of relative performance in the final part of qualifying was clouded by huge swings in track temperature and wind direction – but both Mercedes drivers agreed that reverting to the W16’s pre-Imola rear-suspension spec helped them, even if rookie Andrea Kimi Antonelli was eliminated in Q2.

“It's a bit of a shame that we didn't go earlier to the old suspension because definitely today, this weekend overall, I felt far more confident in the car than I was before,” said Antonelli.

“And, yeah, it's a shame because I think today the result could have been much better.”

For the Emilia-Romagna Grand Prix in May, Mercedes introduced a new rear suspension geometry aimed at countering the rear’s natural tendency to lift under heavy deceleration as the weight transfers forwards.

In theory this would be beneficial not just to the aerodynamics, by keeping the car at a stable altitude relative to the track surface, but also to rear-tyre performance because it would reduce the tendency of those wheels to lock under braking.

Andrea Kimi Antonelli, Mercedes

Ground-effect aerodynamics work at their best if the car’s ride height and angle remains consistent.

But anti-lift geometry on the rear axle is fundamentally more complicated than it is at the front, given the forces acting on that area of the car. Even when it works as anticipated, it generally provides less feedback to the driver, which accounts for both Russell and Antonelli reporting a lack of confidence in the W16’s rear end since the new rear suspension was definitively fitted in Canada.

That would certainly account for Antonelli’s form during the European season, which he admitted was disastrous. But the team’s decision-making was influenced by Russell’s win in Canada; after a disappointing weekend in Imola, it went back to the old rear suspension for Monaco before opting for the new one in Montreal.

The lesson for anyone applying upgrades whose virtues have only been proven in simulation is that different tracks and variable conditions can muddle the verdict on new components.

"I think Formula 1 is so complex because even if you have the exact same car, one circuit you're quick, one circuit you're slow, and there's different reasons why there's this,” said Russell after qualifying in Hungary.

“And you sometimes need to give an upgrade a real test on different types of circuits, different types of conditions, to categorically say ‘this is why we’re good or this is why we’re bad’. Barcelona, Imola, they were all very hot race weekends.

George Russell, Mercedes

“We believe that was our root cause and it still is a big factor of our limitation. But clearly in Spa, we were very underwhelming and clearly the suspension was not an upgrade."

Montreal, where most of the braking is done in a straight line and there are few high-speed or combined corners, didn’t expose what proved to be fundamental limitations with the later rear-suspension design. The lack of dynamic feedback on more flowing circuits made the W16 feel more unpredictable – particularly for Antonelli, given his more flamboyantly aggressive driving style.

But Russell also introduced a note of realism, pointing out that the change may not be as transformative as it appears.

“Q3 was a messy session,” he said. “We took the smallest step backwards from Q2 – I was only a tenth slower than Q2. Charles was two tenths slower, Fernando was two tenths slower, McLaren was six tenths slower.

“I'm not going to get carried away with that Q3 performance, because for the rest of the weekend it hasn't been straightforward. Of course, Kimi was also out in Q2 and it's not been plain sailing."

To read more Motorsport.com articles visit our website.