Mercedes is shining in Baku through a combination of power and an exceptionally broad operating window. McLaren and Red Bull still have the potential to fight, while Ferrari is searching for a mechanical breakthrough with its options currently limited.
Thursday in Baku reinforced the indications that emerged during the opening practice session: energy management is one of the defining themes of the Azerbaijan Grand Prix weekend, and Mercedes appears to have the best tools to exploit it. Its eight-tenths advantage over the nearest non-Mercedes rival in FP2 is significant, even if it would be premature to consider Thursday’s times a definitive representation of the competitive order.
The impression is that Mercedes ran its power unit more aggressively than some of its rivals, and on a circuit this sensitive to power, even relatively small differences immediately become highly visible. However, the W17’s advantage does not appear to be explained by engine modes alone. Baku highlights many of the car’s natural strengths, while Ferrari is facing an interconnected problem involving electrical energy availability, traction and suspension choices. McLaren still appears to have performance in reserve that is difficult to quantify, while Red Bull continues to offer an interesting compromise, particularly in the hands of Max Verstappen.
Mercedes package makes the most of Baku’s demands
With nine acceleration zones beginning from speeds below 100 km/h, Baku requires strong torque from the internal combustion engine as well as enough electrical energy to support both low-speed acceleration and the circuit’s extraordinarily long flat-out sections. Mercedes looked particularly effective in exactly this combination.
Even during the opening practice session, its straight-line advantage could not be explained solely by the slipstream George Russell benefited from. FP2 strengthened the impression that the Mercedes power unit is capable of providing useful deployment over a larger portion of the lap than its rivals. That strength is another element behind the wider performance of the Mercedes W17 during the 2026 season.
Completing the picture is a W17 that appears compliant and agile. The efficiency of Mercedes’ low-downforce package seems to give the team greater freedom with its suspension configuration as well. Mercedes can search for mechanical grip and drivability without having to make the platform excessively stiff simply to contain straight-line losses. The engine and chassis advantages therefore reinforce each other.
George Russell made very effective use of that package. Midway through the session, the British driver appeared to find almost three tenths through a clear increase in confidence under braking, another reminder of how important driver execution remains even when the technical package is strong.
Kimi Antonelli did not look quite as comfortable after the hydraulic problem that disrupted his morning. Baku’s corners give the Italian fewer opportunities to manipulate the car through his driving style and, particularly under braking, his confidence did not appear to be at George Russell’s level. Part of Kimi Antonelli’s potential improvement therefore lies simply in building continuity after a complicated start to the day.
Ferrari moves the energy around but cannot create more of it
Ferrari’s work on the distribution of electrical energy was evident from the beginning. During FP1, Charles Leclerc alternated laps with significantly different deployment patterns, initially prioritising the straight in the opening sector before later concentrating more electrical assistance towards the end of the lap.
Every team experimented with where to spend its available energy on a circuit that remained particularly dirty early in the day, but the variations were especially noticeable on the SF-26. The challenge was expected to be particularly important after the FIA identified the key Baku straight-mode zones that would test Ferrari’s energy deployment.
The second practice session showed the cost of Ferrari’s compromise more clearly. The Scuderia concentrates its electrical deployment in the most sensitive areas of the lap, but must compensate by saving or recovering energy elsewhere. On the shorter acceleration zones through the middle sector, that can translate into speed differences of around 10 km/h.
Charles Leclerc’s lap illustrates the situation particularly well. In the final sector, the Ferrari driver was able to get close to matching George Russell, but reaching that point came after surrendering roughly six tenths through the middle part of the lap. Ferrari’s competitiveness at the end of the lap therefore does not, by itself, demonstrate that its energy problem has been solved. It must be considered alongside what was sacrificed earlier.
The speed differences across Baku’s various acceleration zones can be explored further through the ScuderiaFans F1 Top Speed Comparison.
At low revs, meanwhile, the combustion engine’s contribution appears relatively modest. Electrical assistance could theoretically compensate for that weakness, but this introduces Ferrari’s second limitation: the rear of the SF-26 is already very stiff and operating close to the available grip threshold. It does not appear to offer enough margin to put significantly more power onto the track effectively.
The question is therefore not simply how much electrical energy Ferrari can make available, but how much of that energy the car can actually transfer to the asphalt. On a circuit that repeatedly combines heavy braking, slow corners and acceleration from low speed, those difficulties accumulate. The result is that Ferrari can lose more time through the driven sections than it does on the outright straights.
Why the Ferrari SF-26 cannot recover enough time in the corners
Ferrari’s stiffness appears to be linked to its pursuit of maximum straight-line efficiency, with the car kept as low to the ground as possible to limit aerodynamic drag. The downside is a car that is less able to meet the demands of mechanical grip, with the rear often close to its limit over kerbs and under traction.
That compromise had already become a significant talking point at the previous round, where the stiff SF-26 configuration exposed Ferrari’s mechanical limitations. Baku provides another difficult test because there are no genuinely high-speed corners where this type of platform can generate a meaningful return.
The strong braking performance Ferrari displayed in the opening practice session remains an advantage, but it is not enough to create a benefit across the complete cornering phase. Another traditional SF-26 strength is also less valuable in Azerbaijan: the width of its operating window.
Ferrari can usually produce a good balance at circuits combining corners with very different radii and speeds. Baku, however, is comparatively repetitive. Apart from the Castle section, the layout is dominated by 90-degree corners and accelerations beginning below 100 km/h.
That makes it easier for every team to converge towards an effective balance, including cars that are normally more demanding in this respect, such as Red Bull. Ferrari therefore receives a smaller benefit from its versatility: its rivals face fewer compromises to solve, while the SF-26 cannot recover through the corners what it loses during acceleration.
It is another example of the mechanical trade-offs that have repeatedly shaped Ferrari’s season, with the wider Ferrari technical analysis showing how ride height, suspension behaviour and aerodynamic efficiency have become closely connected areas of development on the SF-26.
ADUO 2 could offer an important clue in Ferrari’s Baku data
Logic would suggest that Charles Leclerc was running the ADUO 2 engine specification on Thursday, while Lewis Hamilton was using the previous ADUO 1 version. If that assumption is correct, the difference observed between the two cars could provide an interesting indication of how Ferrari’s power unit has evolved.
The benefit of the development would appear to emerge primarily in efficiency and in the ability to maintain energy availability throughout the lap, rather than simply through an increase in peak power. From around the middle of the lap, Lewis Hamilton appeared to have considerably less electrical energy available to deploy.
That distinction is particularly important in Baku, where achieving a strong speed at one isolated point is less valuable than having enough energy to repeatedly support acceleration zones and long straights. Ferrari’s concerns over this aspect were already central to the team’s technical outlook ahead of the Azerbaijan Grand Prix.
If Thursday’s gaps were to remain representative, a potential power-unit change for Charles Leclerc would become easier to understand. However, such a decision depends on information regarding component margins, availability and the consequences of a change that only Ferrari possesses.
McLaren and Red Bull remain in the Baku fight
McLaren loses significant time on the straights but shows strong performance through most of Baku’s more technical sections. The Castle area is the notable exception, where the slow and twisting sequence appears to cause more difficulty for the updated MCL40. It remains unclear, however, how much set-up margin McLaren still has available.
The Woking team’s Thursday must also be viewed in the context of the numerous upgrades introduced in Azerbaijan and the problems encountered during the opening practice session. Monza offers a reason not to discount McLaren: electrical energy availability also appeared to be a limitation during practice there, before qualifying revealed how much the Mercedes power unit still had available when performance was increased.
Red Bull, by contrast, continues to look like a well-balanced compromise. Its energy distribution follows a different strategy and still appears capable of further optimisation, while the car’s balance gives Max Verstappen the opportunity to become a factor in the battle for the first two rows of the grid.
A circuit such as Baku does a good job of hiding some of the RB22’s limitations while allowing the strengths of its power unit to emerge. That keeps Max Verstappen firmly in the picture despite Mercedes’ sizeable advantage on Thursday.
Tyre introduction could be decisive in Baku race pace
The race simulations introduced another variable: how each team brought the tyre into its working window. Max Verstappen and George Russell were able to begin their runs strongly and then maintain consistent performance. Kimi Antonelli, Ferrari and McLaren started at least one second more slowly before converging towards similar reference times after several laps.
The key question is what that more cautious opening phase provides later in the stint. If a gentler tyre introduction preserves performance towards the end of the run, the time initially surrendered could eventually be recovered. If it does not, however, it simply becomes a deficit that is difficult to regain.
The long runs completed on Thursday were too short to answer that question conclusively. The different practice trends and stint evolution can be followed through the ScuderiaFans F1 Practice & Long-Run Analysis.
FP3 and, above all, qualifying will need to establish how much of Mercedes’ current advantage comes from the way it used its power unit on Thursday and how much remains once every team increases performance.
Ferrari needs to solve both suspension and energy problems
Ferrari’s task is more complex than simply increasing deployment. The Scuderia must find a better way to distribute its electrical energy without asking the rear axle to transmit more power than the available grip can support, while simultaneously recovering mechanical grip without sacrificing even more aerodynamic efficiency.
That interaction between suspension behaviour and energy management is where Ferrari’s chances of fighting for something better than the third row may ultimately be decided. Mercedes currently appears to possess a package naturally suited to Baku, while Red Bull and McLaren retain avenues for improvement. Ferrari, by contrast, has to make two interconnected compromises work together before qualifying.
Leave a Reply