George Russell has once again taken aim at Ferrari regarding the issue of race starts, an area where the Italian team has strongly defended its position. The Mercedes driver suggested that the situation could involve safety concerns, raising the question of whether the FIA might once again revise the starting procedures ahead of the Chinese Grand Prix.
The British driver continues to criticize Ferrari over what he perceives as a significant advantage during the start phase. George Russell has repeatedly pointed out that the situation could potentially create safety concerns, fueling speculation about whether the FIA could introduce further adjustments to the start procedure before the next round of the Formula 1 season in Shanghai.
Russell: “People have selfish opinions”
George Russell made it clear what he believes Ferrari’s position is regarding further modifications to the starting procedures that could be introduced by the governing body.
“The FIA was trying to make changes, but as you can imagine, some teams that were making good starts didn’t want that, which I find a bit silly. But I’m not overly worried, it is certainly a challenge.”
According to reports from The Race, the Maranello-based Ferrari team pushed strongly to ensure that the procedures would not be modified again simply to help teams whose cars are not optimized for the start phase. Frederic Vasseur’s squad reportedly believes that it is now up to their rivals to adapt to the existing rules, especially considering that the issues related to the starting procedure had been known for more than a year.
The Ferrari team principal had already warned competitors about the potential implications following the removal of the MGU-H component. However, thanks to a smaller turbocharger configuration, the Prancing Horse now appears to enjoy a particular advantage during the start phase and is understandably unwilling to give it up.
A source suggested that if drivers have safety concerns under the current circumstances, they still have the option of starting the race from the pit lane instead of the grid. Four-time world champion Max Verstappen also commented on the matter, stating that there are “some simple solutions” to the battery-related issues that typically appear at the beginning of races, although such measures would need to be “authorized by the FIA”.
George Russell then returned to the subject once again, indirectly targeting Ferrari and describing the situation as an example of “selfish” behaviour: “The FIA could make changes, I think they want to, but they need an overwhelming majority from the teams, which they don’t have. So you can probably imagine which team is against it. I don’t think their advantage comes from this issue. Now that all teams know about the problem, we will work around it. But in this way you only create unnecessary complications for something that actually shouldn’t even be there.”
Once again the British driver referred to safety concerns, attempting to portray Ferrari as the side that does not want additional regulatory adjustments: “As I said, half of the grid got it wrong in Melbourne. We will adapt. Now we know what we need to pay attention to. The FIA only wanted to make life easier for us and remove this harvesting limit. But often people have selfish opinions and want to do what is best for themselves. That is part of Formula 1 and part of the challenge of Formula 1. We will deal with it. I think the starts here will be much better.”
The war of words between Brackley and Maranello highlights the cutthroat nature of the 2026 technical cycle, where every megajoule of energy is a hard-fought battleground. While Russell frames the argument around safety and simplicity, Ferrari sees it as a reward for superior engineering foresight. By successfully navigating the transition away from the MGU-H, Ferrari has claimed a strategic high ground that they are unlikely to vacate without a fight. As the cars line up on the grid in Shanghai, the pressure won’t just be on the drivers’ left hands, but on the FIA’s ability to balance competitive fairness with technical excellence. For now, the “selfish” route, as Russell calls it, is simply the sound of a team winning the development race.
