Mercedes searches for answers after Sepang upgrade struggles

Mercedes’ upgraded W17 proved difficult to set up in practice at Sepang, giving the team work to do before qualifying.

GPBeat · Newsroom03 Oct 2026, 06:25 · 1 min

George Russell finished seventh and Kimi Antonelli eighth in the second practice session at Sepang, both about half a second behind pace-setter Charles Leclerc. Their positions left Mercedes looking for a better setup for its upgraded W17 ahead of qualifying.

Mercedes brought new sidepods and a revised floor. In a technical analysis for RacingNews365, Paolo Filisetti and Samuel Coop report that the drivers tried suspension and flap-angle changes during the second session without finding a satisfactory balance. They suggest the car responded differently to its revised aerodynamic balance than Mercedes’ simulations had predicted.

Mercedes spent much of the first session checking the new parts, including steady-speed runs to compare track data with simulations, leaving little indication of its race pace. Track evolution and heat may have contributed to its setup difficulties. The Friday sessions do not yet show whether the upgrade will prove effective.

Source context

Source: Paolo Filisetti and Samuel Coop’s technical analysis for RacingNews365, published on 3 October 2026.

Claims and supporting evidence 5

RacingNews365 reports that Mercedes used FP1 chiefly to validate a development package comprising new sidepods and a revised floor, including constant-speed runs to collect data for comparison with simulations.

This source finding must be read within the stated scope and source context. Mercedes W17 development during the first practice day at Sepang. First practice day, before FP3 and qualifying; article dated 2026-10-03. This is the publication's account of the team's work, not a supplied team statement or underlying dataset.

[1]

RacingNews365 reports Russell seventh and Antonelli eighth in FP2, approximately half a second behind session leader Charles Leclerc.

This source finding must be read within the stated scope and source context. Reported FP2 positions and gap at Sepang. FP2 on the first practice day. The linked full results page was not supplied; the positions and approximate gap come from the read article.

[1]

RacingNews365 says both drivers tried suspension and flap-angle changes without finding a satisfactory setup. It interprets the W17's response to the revised aerodynamic balance as differing from simulation predictions.

This source finding must be read within the stated scope and source context. Technical interpretation of Mercedes' FP2 setup difficulties. FP2 on the first practice day. The setup assessment and simulation comparison are the publication's technical analysis, not independently supplied telemetry or a quoted Mercedes finding.

[1]

The article cautions that FP1 did not allow Mercedes' race pace to be properly assessed. It raises track evolution and heat as possible partial influences on the setup difficulty, and explicitly says the difficulty does not establish that the upgrade fails.

This source finding must be read within the stated scope and source context. Limits on interpreting the first practice day. First practice day, before FP3 and qualifying. Track conditions are presented as a possible contributing factor, not an established cause; the eventual effectiveness of the upgrade is unresolved.

[1]

The article credits Paolo Filisetti and Samuel Coop and identifies Filisetti as RacingNews365's technical analyst. Its assessment of the challenge ahead belongs to that published analysis, not to a quoted Mercedes representative.

This source finding must be read within the stated scope and source context. Publication and attribution of the technical assessment. Article dated 2026-10-03; assessment made ahead of FP3 and qualifying. No independent account or direct team explanation was included among the supplied documents.

[1]

This article was produced with AI assistance. Source references make its supporting evidence traceable.