Norris edges Hamilton and Antonelli by milliseconds at Madring qualifying

Norris beats Antonelli by just 11 thousandths at Madring: McLaren’s strengths and the British driver’s skill made the difference, while Hamilton was held back by an error and energy issues.

Lando Norris claimed pole at Madring by a mere eleven thousandths of a second over Kimi Antonelli. He delivered a near-perfect lap on a track where Mercedes appeared to have an advantage. However, telemetry analysis from the Spanish qualifying session reveals how McLaren combined the strengths of their chassis with Mercedes’ power unit. Norris masterfully exploited this combination.

and on Google News to improve the quality of the articles

F1 telemetry analysis qualifying Spain Norris Antonelli Verstappen Hamilton Ferrari Mercedes McLaren Leclerc Piastri Russell Red Bull energy engine duo overtaking incident wall safety car strategies degradation pit stops technical data engineer Vasseur Wolff Briatore — Telemetry analysis from Spanish qualifying showing Norris, Antonelli, Verstappen, and Hamilton (©Matteo Venezia X F1inGenerale)

Norris blends Mercedes engine and McLaren’s cornering strength

With identical power units, McLaren chose a different deployment strategy compared to Mercedes. Norris lost time on the main straight in sector one but regained ground in the run towards turn 5. That is where the MCL40 maximizes electric power.

The real advantage came in the corners. As seen in Hungary and the Netherlands, the MCL40 delivers excellent downforce and balance that Norris exploits on the limit. He gained over the Mercedes in both long and medium-speed corners. He completed a nearly flawless lap except for a minor slip at the final corner.

Mercedes particularly stood out mechanically. The W17 soaks up curbs exceptionally well, allowing Antonelli to use the full track width and take lines difficult for rivals to replicate.

Red Bull showed two sides. The power unit proved strong, but on a circuit like Madring, the car’s chassis limitations surfaced more clearly: its cornering performance was generally the weakest among top teams. Verstappen’s pushing to the limit also increased balance issues, mainly towards the end of the lap when the tires were more stressed.

Ferrari remains competitive, especially in fast corners. Yet telemetry highlights once again their energy deficit throughout the lap. Maranello confirmed a very aggressive deployment on the straight before turn 5. This strategy was later adopted by McLaren. Still, they lose speed on all other straights. Managing the power unit remains a key compromise for the SF-26.

What did Hamilton lack?

Hamilton’s initial Q3 attempt placed him provisionally on pole. This was largely due to an exceptional first sector where Ferrari is usually stronger. Comparing him to Leclerc shows two key maneuvers in braking and cornering at turns 1 and 5. Here, the seven-time world champion gained about three-tenths overall. This advantage came from driving skill rather than differences between ADUO 1 and ADUO 2 modes.

F1 Hamilton Leclerc Q3 sector 1 comparison Madrid qualifying Ferrari Mercedes McLaren Red Bull energy deployment overtaking incident strategies degradation pit stop technical data engineer Vasseur Wolff Briatore — Comparison of Hamilton and Leclerc in sector 1, first Q3 attempt (©Matteo Venezia X F1inGenerale)

However, on his final run, Hamilton made a mistake at turn 2 right away. This affected the entire lap early on and prevented him from matching his previous sector 1. Added to this were evident energy management issues. He lost considerable top speed approaching turns 16 and 22 compared to his provisional pole lap. There was no clear redistribution of energy elsewhere.

F1 Hamilton Q3 first vs second attempt Madrid qualifying Ferrari Mercedes McLaren Red Bull energy power unit overtaking incident strategies degradation pit stop technical data engineer Vasseur Wolff Briatore — Comparison of Hamilton’s first vs second Q3 attempts in Madrid (©Matteo Venezia X F1inGenerale)

This pattern suggests suboptimal energy status or deployment settings. However, telemetry alone can’t confirm the exact cause. This speed loss adds another factor but does not fully explain the full gap to pole position.