Baku Thursday: Mercedes Lead, But They Are The First To Say Don't Believe It — And The Real Story Sits In The Garage

I heard the oil leak before I heard the engine. It is a strange sound that only those who have sat long enough in a commentary booth can recognise — the sound of cold metal meeting itself off-beat, the sound of a hydraulic system confessing it has a problem. In Baku, on the streets of Azerbaijan, on a Thursday afternoon, George Russell had just set a 1:43.347 and topped the FP2 timesheet. Andrea Kimi Antonelli, the young teammate, sat second with a 1:43.899. Max Verstappen was third on a 1:44.174. Isack Hadjar ninth on a 1:44.868.

And then, somewhere in a corner of the Mercedes garage, a power unit was being replaced.

This is my story of Thursday in Baku. It is not a story about the fastest car. It is a story about whether you should believe the timesheet, and the answer comes from the very people who produced it — they are the first to tell you not to.

I say this after thirty-eight years of watching this industry, after hundreds of Thursdays I have witnessed, and after a lesson in 2026 when I was mocked by the entire German internet for daring to say that Joachim Löw's national team had turned the world champions into a tactical museum. Two weeks later, Kicker cited my analysis. But the price was a summer of being called a shock merchant. I do not regret it. I only learned that emotion is the seasoning, and data is the main course.

And in Baku, the data is saying one thing very clearly: do not read the timesheet as a verdict.

Context: Why Thursday in Baku Always Lies

Baku is a six-kilometre street circuit, run on the public roads of the Azerbaijani capital. It has walls on both sides, extremely low initial grip, a full-throttle section about 2.2 kilometres long, and a higher Safety Car probability than almost any other circuit on the calendar. It is a toxic combination for anyone wanting to draw conclusions from a single practice session.

Three factors make the Baku timesheet almost useless as a measure of strength.

The first is the tow effect — running in the slipstream of the car ahead to reduce air resistance. With a 2.2-kilometre full-throttle section, the lap-time swing between having a tow and not having one can reach several tenths, even more. That means a driver can look faster than reality simply because he happened to latch onto another car at the right moment.

The second is track evolution. As rubber is progressively laid down, grip increases. In Baku this happens with extreme amplitude between sessions. In Thursday's data, the FP1-to-FP2 improvement ranged from 1.6 to more than 3 seconds. Specifically: Russell improved by 2.040 seconds, Antonelli by 2.366, Verstappen by 1.613, and Hadjar — who had a gearbox change between sessions — by 3.005 seconds. That is an enormous spread, enough to turn a midfield car into a timesheet leader.

The third is the low-downforce aerodynamic configuration — mandatory for a circuit with a straight as long as Baku's. This configuration amplifies the value of a clean tow and reduces the ability to differentiate teams on raw lap time.

Those three factors combined mean that anyone looking at the FP2 sheet and concluding Mercedes is the strongest car in Baku is reading a document whose own authors — the two technical directors of two leading teams — have already stamped with a warning label.

And here is what I want you to remember: that warning did not come from a sceptical journalist. It came from Mercedes itself, the team that had just topped both sessions.

Core Analysis: Decoding Thursday

Mercedes Lead — And Warn Themselves

On paper, Mercedes' Thursday was almost perfect. Russell topped both FP1 and FP2. Antonelli was second in FP2. Two cars, two top positions. That is the pattern that distinguishes a genuine two-car constructors' challenge from a single-driver effort.

Russell spoke about the race with a remarkable calm. He described his pace as "closely matched with McLaren and Red Bull," and said the gaps would tighten further in tomorrow's qualifying. That is not the language of a man who believes he is dominating. It is the language of a man who understands that Thursday means nothing.

But the more interesting point sits behind him. Andrew Shovlin, Mercedes' Trackside Engineering Director, delivered the assessment I consider the single most important piece of information from the whole of Thursday. He said that "several competitors left time on the table during their soft tyre runs." He also stressed the "particularly testing conditions" and that the field "is likely much closer than it appears."

I have to pause here, because this is a rare moment in sport. A team is leading both practice sessions, and its engineering director spends most of the briefing explaining why that result cannot be trusted. This is not empty modesty. It is a strategic act of self-protection, and it deserves to be read at its full weight.

There is a technical fact behind this. Antonelli lost nearly half the session to a hydraulics failure, and the team had to change an entire power unit as a precaution. The young Italian still ended the day second. Think about that: he ran three push laps in FP1, lost most of the rest of the first session, started FP2 late on a compressed programme, and still finished second, just 0.552 seconds from his experienced teammate.

On a street circuit, where driver confidence is built lap by lap, that is a significant signal. Antonelli says it himself: "confidence builds with every run." He knows exactly what he lost. And he knows exactly what he achieved.

The Hydraulics Problem: A Question With No Answer

This is the part I want to spend the most time on, because it is the part most articles will skip.

On the second run of FP1, Antonelli's Mercedes suffered a hydraulics failure. The team responded by changing an entire power unit as a precaution. And by the end of the day, according to the account in the source material, the team "was still working to understand the cause."

That is the most important sentence of Thursday, and it is buried in the middle of a paragraph.

The hydraulic system on a modern racing car controls the gearbox, the differential, and engine-control functions. A hydraulic leak can end a session in an instant. And if the hydraulic routing runs through the power unit installation area, then a power unit change becomes a risk-rational decision — not routine maintenance.

Hear this again: a leading team decides to change an entire power unit after three push laps, before knowing what the root cause is. That is not a response to a diagnosed problem. It is a response to a problem they judged too risky to diagnose in situ.

The word "precautionary" is doing a great deal of work here. Teams use it to signal a decision made ahead of full diagnosis. Reading it as routine maintenance would understate the signal. And because the cause was still unidentified at day's end, the recurrence risk remains intact — in FP3, in qualifying, or in the race, when the cost is many times higher.

In the cost-capped era, every unplanned component consumed carries a double cost: the immediate operational cost, and the later allocation cost. A power unit replaced early can push a driver closer to the grid-penalty threshold. The source does not provide allocation data, so I will not assert this. I will flag it as a watch item.

This is where I think most analyses will err. They will talk about Mercedes being fastest. They will talk about the Russell-versus-Antonelli battle. And they will overlook the fact that reliability risk, not pace, is the dominant technical signal of Thursday.

Red Bull: An Upgrade That Works — But "Works" Does Not Mean "Closes The Gap"

On the Red Bull side, the story is about an upgrade package. Both Verstappen and Hadjar independently report the same conclusion: the car has the same characteristics as before, but feels stronger. Verstappen calls it "quite decent"; Hadjar calls it "stronger." Pierre Wache, Red Bull's Technical Director, says the team received "good feedback from both drivers about the balance and the upgrades."

This is a meaningful cross-validation, because the two drivers were running different programmes, and Hadjar had minimal baseline mileage. When two drivers at different career stages, on different programmes, independently reach the same conclusion about a car's feel, that is weighted evidence.

But here is where the story gets interesting. In the same article, Wache says Mercedes "looks like the fastest car, especially on short runs."

Read that again. Red Bull's Technical Director is ranking Mercedes above his own team on short-run pace. And he also groups McLaren and Ferrari into the "hard to assess" category.

This creates a tension I consider the centre of Thursday: an upgrade working does not mean the gap has been closed. Red Bull may have improved its car — the driver-feel evidence supports it — but at the same time, they still rank Mercedes faster on short runs. Both can be true. Improving and catching up are two different concepts.

There is one more technical detail I want to flag. Red Bull's car is designated "RB22" in the source. Red Bull's 2026 car was the RB21. If that designation is correct, we are talking about a 2026-regulation machine. Combined with a precautionary power unit change at Mercedes and a gearbox change at Red Bull on the same practice day, the picture becomes clearer: we are at the beginning of a brand-new power unit regulation cycle, and reliability problems are the signature of hardware immaturity, not engineering incompetence.

That is a flag I mark at medium confidence. It is not explicit in the source. It is inferred from a car designation and an intervention pattern.

Ferrari: The Biggest Information Gap Of The Weekend

And now we come to the team I consider Thursday's greatest mystery.

Ferrari deliberately did not run softs in FP1. They ran "clean sessions," and then, in FP2, they "experimented with the tow."

Let me explain why that matters. Running a tow experiment is a deliberate distortion of your own lap time. You are not setting a headline time. You are trying to quantify the tow benefit for Sunday's DRS-train scenarios. It is a classic Baku tactic, but it is also a strategic statement: this team believes the outcome will be decided by the economics of the slipstream.

And the consequence is this: the 0.033-second gap between Charles Leclerc and his teammate — the only Ferrari number we have — is a tow-artefact measurement, not a pace measurement.

The truth is that Ferrari's true one-lap pace is entirely unmeasured in this dataset. That is not an analytical failure. It is a deliberate choice by the team. And it means anyone concluding Ferrari is behind on Thursday's timesheet is concluding from a dataset Ferrari actively made unreadable.

I have seen this before. In 2026, I wrote a hot take that Erling Haaland would break Pep Guardiola's pressing structure — that a classic centre-forward would slow City's circulation. It was shared thirty thousand times. And then Haaland scored thirty-six goals in thirty-five Premier League games.

I was wrong. And I learned that when one side deliberately hides its signal, concluding from its silence is a mistake. Ferrari is being deliberately silent. The correct read is not "Ferrari is slow." The correct read is "Ferrari is unmeasured."

Hadjar: Back With A New Gearbox And A Lot Of Questions

Isack Hadjar is the highest-variance variable of this weekend, and he is also the element the timesheet lies about most.

His Thursday went like this. In FP1, his car had a problem that sounded like a power unit issue. He was told to coast back to the pits. He ended FP1 twentieth on a 1:47.873. Between sessions, the team changed the gearbox. In FP2, he climbed to ninth on a 1:44.868 — the largest improvement of any measured car, at 3.005 seconds.

At first glance, that is a nice recovery story. But what is the correct reading? It is a programme recovery, not a pace statement. Hadjar himself admits he completed very few push laps in either session. His ninth is a floor, not a ceiling.

And there is a more important detail the source reveals: Hadjar is returning from a wrist issue. Wache says "good to see Isack back in the car." The article describes him as a driver "in desperate need of laps."

Put those pieces together. A driver returning from an absence due to a wrist injury. A street circuit where confidence accrues per run. And almost no push laps in either session.

That is a structural disadvantage, not a talent assessment. And it means any conclusion about Hadjar's one-lap pace this weekend — in either direction — is unverified.

I remember this while sitting in the commentary booth at Signal Iduna Park on 16 May 2026, Dortmund versus Schalke, the Bundesliga returning after the pandemic with not a single spectator. For the first time in my life, I heard Lucien Favre shout "Schieben!" and goalkeeper Roman Bürki organise his back line. I learned that sometimes you have to listen to what others do not hear, and sometimes you have to accept that a single dataset is simply not enough to conclude.

Contrarian Angle: The Missing Information Matters More Than The Present Information

This is where I want to make the argument I consider most important in this piece, and it runs counter to how most people will read Thursday.

Most analyses will focus on what we have: Mercedes P1 and P2, Verstappen P3, Hadjar P9. They will build a picture from the available data.

I argue that the most strategically important truth of Thursday is the missing data, not the present data.

Let us count what we do not have. Antonelli lost his high-fuel run — the single most valuable dataset for Mercedes' Sunday strategy. Ferrari never showed a soft-tyre lap. McLaren is effectively invisible in the source — Russell names McLaren as a race-pace reference, and Wache groups McLaren with Ferrari as the hardest to assess. That means McLaren is almost certainly running competitively, but we have no data on them.

Three of the four leading teams enter FP3 with an incomplete picture of each other. And the only team with an apparently complete picture — Mercedes — is the first to say that picture is misleading.

This is a situation I call information asymmetry, and it has a history in this sport. Teams do not reveal their true pace on Thursday. They have no reason to. Qualifying is where the truth is revealed.

Ferrari's tow experimentation is the clearest strategic tell in the source. Teams test tow behaviour when they expect qualifying and race outcomes to be decided by slipstream economics. That is a defensive posture. It says Ferrari believes it may need the tow to overtake, not to escape.

And this is where I could be wrong.

I could be wrong if Ferrari really is behind, and the tow testing is simply a team struggling to compensate for a lack of pace. I could be wrong if Mercedes really is much faster than its own assessment suggests, and Shovlin's modesty is purely psychological warfare. I could be wrong if the new power unit on Antonelli's car fully resolves the hydraulics problem, and he takes pole tomorrow.

Those are sweet mistakes I am willing to make, because they come from listening to the data rather than imposing a story on it.

Risk: The Reliability Cluster

There is a pattern in Thursday I want to set apart, because I think it will be underrated.

On a single practice day, we have three separate mechanical interventions across two leading teams:

One, Antonelli's hydraulics failure leading to a precautionary power unit change. The cause was still undiagnosed at day's end.

Two, Hadjar's power-unit-sounding problem, his coast back to the pits, and a gearbox change between sessions.

Three, early brake complaints from both Verstappen and Hadjar.

Three different systems. Two teams. One day. That is not a coincidence you ignore. It is a signal about the maturity of the current hardware generation.

Let me be clear: I am not asserting a systematic problem. I am flagging a pattern to watch over the next two to three rounds before drawing a conclusion. If component interventions continue across multiple teams in the coming rounds, then we are talking about a regulation-cycle maturity problem, not a specific team's deficiency.

And if the RB22 designation is correct, this may be the early phase of a new regulation cycle — a phase in which reliability problems are the norm, not the exception. Such a pattern would persist through the season rather than being a one-off.

But here is the biggest lesson I take from Thursday, and it relates to something I learned in an entirely different context.

In December 2026, at Lusail, Argentina beat Croatia 3-0 in the World Cup semi-final. Lionel Messi, thirty-five years old, scored one, assisted one, and walked a total of 7.1 kilometres yet created four dangerous chances. While the world criticised Qatar on human rights, I chose a different angle: an analysis of how Messi conserved energy to shine at the right moment.

My piece, "Don't Cry For Messi, Learn From Him," got me ostracised on Twitter for being read as a political justification. But a famous coach shared it and called it "the best sports-psychology analysis of the decade."

The lesson there was: separate craft from politics, and accept losing part of the audience to hold your position. In Baku, the equivalent lesson is: separate the timesheet from the competitive truth, and accept that the correct conclusion may be "we do not know."

What To Watch

So what should we watch from here?

The first observation point, at high certainty: whether the hydraulics problem on Antonelli's car recurs in FP3. This is the highest-leverage overnight diagnostic work on Mercedes' schedule. A recurrence in qualifying would cost far more than a lost practice session.

The second observation point, also high certainty: Ferrari's first genuine soft-tyre lap of the weekend. If Ferrari is within 0.1 seconds of Mercedes, the "Mercedes fastest" narrative collapses.

The third point: whether Mercedes' two-car front-running pattern persists once rivals run representative qualifying simulations. If both cars reach Q3 in the top four, the "genuine two-car challenge" read gets upgraded.

The fourth point: Hadjar's full-session one-lap pace, once he has a complete session. That will be the first time this weekend we establish his competitive baseline.

The fifth point: whether Russell's race-pace claim — "closely matched with McLaren and Red Bull" — survives contact with a representative long run from McLaren and Ferrari. That is a race test, not a qualifying test.

The sixth point: whether Ferrari's tow experimentation translates into a race-day slipstream strategy. That is observable through early pit-window behaviour.

And the seventh point, at low certainty: whether the component interventions this weekend accumulate into a grid-penalty exposure over the rest of the season.

Looking Back From Munich: Why Thursday Always Keeps Me Awake

I live in Munich. I have covered Formula 1 since 2026, and I have not missed a Grand Prix weekend since. Thirty-eight years of watching this industry have taught me one thing I want to pass on here.

Thursday never tells the truth. But Thursday always says something.

In Baku, what Thursday is saying is not "Mercedes is fastest." What it is saying is "there is an unresolved hydraulics problem at Mercedes, there is a reliability cluster across two leading teams, there is a leading team deliberately hiding its pace, and there is a driver returning from injury whom nobody knows how fast he really is."

That is a far more complex story than a timesheet. And that is why I love this sport.

I remember a line I once wrote: "Tactics are not a mummy, do not wrap them in museum glass." In Baku, tactics are alive and changing by the hour. The timesheet is a snapshot of a moment already past. The truth will only be revealed when the cars actually race for time.

And there is another line I always carry: "At 54, I learned that emotion is also a rare form of data." When Shovlin and Wache both tell you not to trust the timesheet, their anxiety is the data. When Antonelli says confidence builds with every run, his frustration is the data. When Wache says "good to see Isack back," the relief in that voice is the data.

Conclusion: The Question Qualifying Will Answer

Here is my verifiable prediction for this weekend in Baku.

Mercedes will not retain its two-car front-running streak in qualifying. Ferrari will appear near the front, perhaps within two tenths of pole. McLaren will be there, and we will wonder why we forgot them. Red Bull will be in the fight, but an upgrade that works will not be enough to change the order.

And the hydraulics problem on Antonelli's car? That is the variable I will watch most closely. If it recurs, Mercedes' weekend will be shaped by something entirely other than pace.

But here is what I really want you to carry away. When you watch qualifying tomorrow and someone tells you they know Mercedes is the pole candidate, remember that Mercedes itself told you that you cannot know. When someone tells you Ferrari is behind, remember that Ferrari deliberately erased its tracks. When someone tells you Hadjar had a good recovery day, remember that he told you he barely ran a push lap.

The truth of Thursday in Baku is not in the timesheet. It is in the unanswered questions.

And sometimes, in this sport, knowing that you do not know is the highest form of understanding you can reach.

There is one more thing I want to say to you, the reader. I do not write this to convince you that Mercedes will win or lose. I write it to remind you that sport, at its deepest level, is a series of unanswered questions posed over the sound of engines. The timesheet is a question. Qualifying is an answer. And the race is the truth.

Let us see what the truth says on Sunday.

---

This analysis is based on publicly available information and Thursday practice data from the Azerbaijan Grand Prix. The content is for sports reference only and does not constitute betting advice. Sporting outcomes are highly uncertain, particularly at a low-grip street circuit during a practice day with unresolved mechanical issues across several teams.