George Russell has claimed he would have won the Japanese Grand Prix had there been a “one lap difference” in the timing of the crucial safety car break during the Suzuka race.
Russell ended up finishing fourth, losing the driver’s championship lead to his winning Mercedes teammate Kimi Antonelli, but with a nine-point difference after three races.
Oliver Bearman crashed his Haas during his only round of pit stops, causing the safety car to be activated and stopped cheaply, giving the lead to Antonelli, who was chasing McLaren’s Oscar Piastri, Russell and Ferrari’s Charles Leclerc before pitting in normal race conditions.
Russell seemed to be particularly frustrated by this turn of events, as he was the last of the leading trio to pit, just seconds before Bearman crashed.
Russell, who expressed disbelief over the radio during the race, later told Sky Sports F1: “If we had a one-lap difference we could have won the race, but obviously we squandered it after that.”
Russell was in third place when the safety car came in at the end of 27 of 53 laps, but was overtaken by Ferrari’s Lewis Hamilton and teammate Leclerc, before eventually overtaking Hamilton and taking fourth place.
He continued: “During the safety car restart, we reached the so-called harvest limit and could not recharge the battery.
“I think a lot of teams had this problem at the start of the race, so I just got skipped by Lewis.”
“And obviously Charles had another battery issue and he was just flying by me and I was stopping.
“So, yeah, it’s pretty frustrating. If we were one lap apart, we would have had a different conversation.”
Was Russell’s claim correct?
Had Russell also easily stopped under the safety car, he would have taken the lead, but Antonelli seemed to be the fastest Silver Arrows driver on the day, and by the time Russell stopped, he was quickly closing the gap between the two.
Changing from medium to hard tires could have reset the pace, but Antonelli surged up the distance on the restart while Russell battled Ferrari, suggesting that he could have at least put pressure on if he had started the final stint behind his teammate.
Piastri, on the other hand, was arguably the unluckiest. He ran a great first stint and pulled away from Russell, then pitted early to avoid an undercut.
He maintained his lead over Russell after the Mercedes stopped and, had it not been for the safety car, he would have held the lead after all the leading cars had pitted.
We’ll never know if he could have resisted Mercedes’ pace in full action, but the way he kept Russell at bay in the early stages suggested he had a chance to do so too.
Wolff: Russell was at a disadvantage due to a setup mistake.
Russell’s weekend took a negative turn on Saturday as he struggled to increase his pace due to setup changes made before qualifying.
He fought his way to second on the grid despite being three-tenths behind Antonelli, but had to continue running around the challenges posed by his set-up in Sunday’s race.
Mercedes’ challenge then intensified with Antonelli dropping from pole position to sixth at the start and Russell dropping from second to fourth.
Assessing why Antonelli was able to outperform Russell, Mercedes boss Toto Wolff told Sky Sports F1: “I think it’s a bit of a mixed feeling. The mistakes we made collectively really put George at a disadvantage in the car.”
“It wasn’t enough from Q1, so he had to fight with that again today.”
Wolff explained that the decision to pit Russell before Bearman’s crash was made to ensure Russell maintained his position on the track against Leclerc, who was traveling faster on fresher tires.
Wolff added: “It’s going to be a close race because it’s the same car, but in the moment when I wanted to go fast I had to make the decision to defend my position against Leclerc, but Kimi had the perfect time and that made the difference.”
“But he (Russell) didn’t have the perfect car.”
F1 returns from May 1-3 with the Miami Grand Prix, the second sprint weekend of the season, being broadcast live on Sky Sports F1. Stream Sky Sports now – cancel anytime with no contract




