How Mercedes has worked to solve its F1 weakness

Mercedes had shown few weaknesses at the start of the season but without a doubt, its race-start performance has been one of them. On several occasions, particularly with Kimi Antonelli, the team had lost positions when the lights went out, to the extent that prior to Canada, it had never managed to lead at the end of the first lap despite having secured all the pole positions.

This was an issue that had to be resolved, because starting at the front only to be immediately swallowed up by the pack, creating an uphill struggle after just a few metres, was certainly not the ideal scenario. The size of the turbo played a part, but it wasn’t the only cause: McLaren, which uses the same power unit, had on several occasions managed to get off the line with purpose.

The Woking-based team, for example, manufactures its gearbox in-house and, amongst other distinctive features, has opted for rather short gear ratios, a philosophy different from that of Mercedes. A choice which, as confirmed by the team’s principal Andrea Stella, offers an advantage at the start, though it is not the only factor. On average, however, the McLarens have shown superior starting performance on two fronts.

The critical issue was consistency. As well as not always having exceptional initial acceleration, the Mercedes also suffered from marked inconsistency in the start: on some occasions it managed to limit the damage to a single position lost, whilst on others the drop-back was significantly greater. This had also been evident in testing in Bahrain, where it took a very long time to manage a good start. This inconsistency had particularly affected Antonelli, who often slipped back in the early stages of the race. 

A distinction must be made here, however, as the Italian was not always to blame. In Australia, for example, the fact that he had arrived on the grid with no power due to a miscalculation by the engineers had prevented him from performing burnouts to warm up the rear tyres properly; furthermore, with a flat battery, his acceleration after clutch release had inevitably suffered.

In China, there had been a misunderstanding with the track engineer regarding the mappings to be used at the start, whilst in Miami, the problem was linked to incorrect estimates by the engineers, who had expected a higher level of grip from his grid position. The start parameters – from the torque to be applied to the mode and timing of clutch release – had been set based on an overestimated grip level, creating a knock-on effect.

At Suzuka, however, the blame fell mainly on the Italian driver, who had made a mistake by releasing the clutch too much. This is an extremely sensitive component, where even a few degrees of movement can have a decisive effect. For this reason, Mercedes had to tackle two areas: on the one hand, they worked on the software, as it was clear there were critical issues to resolve.

On the other hand, Antonelli chose to redesign the clutch lever for improved ergonomics, so as to increase sensitivity during release. The lever itself has not been revolutionised; it remains the classic single-lever design used for years now, but changes have been made to the housing where the fingers are inserted, introducing small variations in positioning that allow for finer control during the release phase.

“We have a new clutch lever on my side, to help me be a bit more consistent when releasing the clutch. Obviously, the team has also worked hard on the software and the clutch itself, trying both to improve performance and to make the system a bit more robust,” explained Antonelli, who then tested the solutions in free practice, confirming the changes for the rest of the weekend.

The housing is tailored to the needs of each driver, who must find the right feel at the release point. In Canada, Mercedes seems to have taken a step forward: in the sprint, Russell produced a real slingshot start, probably the best among the front rows. In the race, however, the three consecutive starts and the slippery conditions created by the drizzle made a precise assessment more difficult, but the performance at the release cannot be considered negative.

We want to hear from you!

– The Autosport.com Team