The working relationship and the sporting comparison
George Russell says his relationship with Kimi Antonelli remains good and acknowledges the Italian’s stronger level in 2026. Formula 1 published the interview on 29 October. For readers, that perspective can be considered alongside the sporting data: how two teammates work and the results they record provide complementary reference points, rather than interchangeable accounts of their season.
Russell wants to repeat the stronger weekends
Russell wants to understand the performance fluctuations and repeat successful weekends more often, focusing on his own preparation. APEX’s reading is that this supplies a question to follow through the remaining races. The answer needs to be built from the team’s explanations and what repeats on track, rather than inferred automatically from one particularly strong or weak finishing position.
The comparison after 18 Grands Prix
Formula 1’s official teammate comparison records an Antonelli advantage of 11–7 in qualifying and 13–5 in races. These are sporting tallies with their own counting conventions, rather than pure measurements of the two drivers’ speed. They provide the statistical context for Russell’s observation. A race result can include the effects of reliability and incidents, so the numbers need to be read alongside how the events actually unfolded.
| Comparison | Russell | Antonelli |
|---|---|---|
| Qualifying | 7 | 11 |
| Races | 5 | 13 |
The championship gap is 123 points
Antonelli leads the championship on 365 points, with Russell second on 242. Subtraction gives a gap of 123. In Austin, the Italian won and collected 25 points while Russell finished eighth for four. Those supply two levels of analysis: what the most recent race produced and what accumulated throughout the season. Neither, by itself, explains the mechanism behind the fluctuations in performance or assigns all of the difference to one factor.
Wolff describes the same need for consistency
In Mercedes’ official Mexico preview, Toto Wolff says the latest package has added performance but accessing it consistently remains difficult. The team wants to understand Russell’s problems and find a better operating window. That is the work programme described by its leadership. Wolff’s assessment complements the driver’s perspective by focusing on understanding the car and preparing each session, connecting the public result with the work that precedes it.
How to read the next weekend
APEX analysis: a useful measure will be continuity between practice, qualifying and the race. A strong result becomes more informative when accompanied by explanations of what changed and what can be repeated. Equally, a difficulty should be separated from an isolated incident or an operating problem. In Mexico, we will follow pace and execution before turning the internal comparison into a story about tension. Russell’s interview provides a more concrete perspective on the work taking place within the team.
