EXPLAINING THE FERRARI-MERCEDES GAP (FOR REAL)

The Chinese Grand Prix ended with yet another Mercedes one-two finish, a result that in itself is hardly surprising anymore. What stands out, however, is the margin with which it came. The gap inflicted on the rest of the field was significant, highlighting once again the solid technical advantage currently enjoyed by the German team.

After the Australian Grand Prix — a track traditionally among the most demanding when it comes to power unit management and therefore theoretically even more favorable to the Mercedes — it was reasonable to expect a different scenario in Shanghai. On paper, the Chinese circuit seemed capable of offering conditions slightly more favorable to the Scuderia Ferrari.

The long middle sector and the opening complex of Turns 1-2-3 looked like sections that could play to the strengths of the SF-26, potentially reducing the importance of Mercedes’ straight-line advantage. In the race, however, that expectation did not materialize, or at least not to the extent that many had anticipated.

The most telling figure is the final gap: Lewis Hamilton crossed the line more than 25 seconds behind, whereas in Australia the Ferraris had finished roughly sixteen seconds behind the W17s, despite not benefiting from the Virtual Safety Car. In other words, the red cars ended up showing in race trim a pace deficit very similar — if not slightly worse — than what had already been seen in qualifying.

Melbourne had told a somewhat different story. Despite a qualifying session that did not fully reflect the true competitive order, the SF-26 had appeared noticeably closer to the Mercedes cars over race distance. This naturally raises the question: what changed in just one week? And why did a track that was expected to limit the gap actually end up making it worse?

It is well known that Mercedes enjoys a significant advantage in energy management within its power unit, a margin that often becomes evident even compared to its own customer teams. But beyond that factor, another technical element seems to play a crucial role: the use of a larger turbine.

The benefit becomes clear during the clipping phase, when the electrical component stops delivering power but the MGU-K is not yet harvesting energy. In that moment the Mercedes internal combustion engine manages to maintain speed more effectively, losing mph more gradually than Ferrari.

When the system enters super-clipping, with the MGU-K actively recovering energy, the loss of speed between the two power units becomes much more comparable.

A clear example had already appeared in the second sector at Melbourne. There, Mercedes cars used the additional energy harvested in the opening part of the lap to reach higher top speeds, but before Turn 9 the drop in speed became very similar to that of the SF-26.

Shanghai told a different story. In the third sector the W17s were simply untouchable, particularly along the long back straight. In that portion of the circuit most teams rarely entered super-clipping, trying instead to limit the loss of speed before the braking zone. It was precisely there that Mercedes built the majority of its advantage over Ferrari.

The difference was even clearer in qualifying: the W17s went from roughly 330–335 km/h down to around 305 km/h while remaining only in clipping, whereas the Ferraris reached nearly 330 km/h but lost more than 40 km/h before the braking point.

In the race, with a less aggressive electrical deployment strategy, this advantage tends to become even more pronounced, especially in the third sector. Not by coincidence, on the main straight — which is shorter — the Mercedes cars rarely gained the same margin, because the clipping phase was naturally much shorter.

Choosing more compact turbines can theoretically offer some advantages. However, in the hybrid era many of the traditional drawbacks of larger turbochargers are almost entirely mitigated. Classic turbo lag at low rpm, for example, can be compensated by the immediate torque provided by the electric systems, allowing engineers to fully exploit the internal combustion engine at higher revs, especially when the electrical component is no longer providing assistance.

This principle is not unique to Formula 1. Many modern hybrid supercars adopt a similar philosophy. The Ferrari SF90 Stradale, for instance, uses larger turbines compared to the Ferrari F8 Tributo precisely because the electric motors compensate at low rpm. The same concept applies to the Ferrari 296 GTB and to the recently introduced Lamborghini Temerario, which can reach 10,000 rpm thanks to electric assistance that offsets the lag of larger turbochargers.

Many observers point to the compression ratio as one of the key secrets behind the Mercedes power unit, and it certainly contributes to the overall performance. However, it does not appear to be the sole explanation. Other Mercedes-powered teams are not dominating the field. The Haas F1 Team, for example, currently looks like one of the strongest cars just behind the top teams overall, yet it does not appear to enjoy an overwhelming advantage purely from the power unit.

The overall impression is therefore that Mercedes currently possesses a more advanced and coherent overall concept of the hybrid power unit, a design philosophy which, combined with an effective layout of the internal combustion engine, makes the W17 extremely competitive on circuits like Shanghai — even against a Ferrari project that remains technically solid overall.

© Simone Marchetti Cavalieri