Who really improved at mid‑season? Quantifying F1’s upgrade winners…
Aug 11, 2025 05:11
Who really improved at mid‑season? Quantifying F1’s upgrade winners through the August break
Combining event‑by‑event driver ranking averages and team upgrade announcements shows which teams extracted the most performance from mid‑season upgrades — a useful signal for second‑half title races and driver market narratives.
Method: what data we use and why (rankings → performance delta)
This analysis uses The Race’s weekend‑by‑weekend driver rankings as the principal performance proxy, then cross‑references team announcements and engineering commentary to tie observed ranking moves to specific upgrade packages and changes in drivability. The Race’s mid‑season compilation averages each driver’s weekend ranking to produce a season‑to‑date snapshot; those per‑driver averages are a practical way to translate qualitative package impact into a measurable “ranking delta” over blocks of races. citeturn1view0
Why rankings? The Race ranking captures more than raw lap time: it folds in execution, relative team‑mate comparison, strategy, mistakes and luck. While it is not a direct lap‑time metric, changes in a driver’s average ranking across two multi‑race windows (for example the opening seven rounds vs the subsequent seven) provide a robust signal of whether a team’s development is producing consistent weekend gains. Where possible we isolate car‑level effects by comparing team‑mate pairs rather than solo driver trends. citeturn1view0
How we translate ranking moves to performance: a short formula
- Compute each driver’s average ranking across two equal multi‑race windows (early season vs mid season).
- Take the difference (early → mid): a move of N ranking positions averaged over a window implies a consistent weekend uplift or decline relative to the field.
- To isolate car gains, compute the team delta as the mean of the two team‑mates’ deltas; large, same‑direction deltas point to car upgrades rather than driver form.
This method is sensitive to small sample noise and luck; later in the article we list limitations and extensions.
Top upgrade winners (case studies)
McLaren — targeted roll‑out, measurable lift
McLaren’s mid‑season programme was the standout example of upgrades delivering both lap‑time gains and improved weekend results. Andrea Stella signposted a phased rollout beginning in Austria and described a 50/25/25 introduction across three races; McLaren subsequently converted multiple 1–2s and race wins during the summer run. That planned rollout and the team’s post‑race praise from Zak Brown and Stella make it straightforward to link observed ranking performance to the upgrade cycle. citeturn4search0turn4search4
The Race’s mid‑season ranking places Oscar Piastri at an average ranking of 4.0 and Lando Norris at 7.249 through the August break — both consistently inside the top 10 across the sampled weekends — reflecting McLaren’s step forward. Using those two driver averages as a team snapshot (team average ≈ 5.62) highlights how far ahead McLaren sits in weekend execution compared with rivals. citeturn9view2
McLaren’s engineering comments indicate the upgrades were partly driver‑tailored: technical staff acknowledged parts biased to Norris’s feel while still intended ultimately for both cars — an approach that buys pace fast but can complicate parts logistics and intra‑team parity. citeturn4search3turn4search1
Sauber — floor upgrades that improved drivability
Sauber’s story is a textbook example of incremental floor work producing a step change. The team introduced a redesigned floor in Barcelona and followed with successive evolutions in Austria and Silverstone; Sauber’s technical lead described these as focused on race‑time drivability rather than raw downforce. The driver ranking evidence matches: Gabriel Bortoleto’s and Nico Hülkenberg’s weekend rankings rose as the floor packages landed, producing the team’s first Q3 appearances and a visible points uptick. citeturn5search0turn1view0
Williams — selective gains but limited development focus
Williams’ mid‑season work has been more modest and selective. The team introduced a new front wing that reportedly unlocked extra mechanical setup options and improved slow‑speed performance — a definite tweak that lifted Alex Albon’s and Carlos Sainz’s ability to extract race pace on particular tracks. At the same time, Williams retained a public emphasis on 2026 development, which caps the scale of mid‑season gains. The Race’s rankings show Albon as one of the stronger midfield performers, but Williams remain a team with incremental, track‑specific improvements rather than a single, transformative package. citeturn5search2turn1view0
Red Bull — upgrades attempted, but inconsistency persists
Red Bull acknowledged early in the year that tyre wear and driveability deficits made closing on McLaren a priority; the team laid out an upgrade plan to address those issues. Despite that, The Race’s mid‑season averages show Max Verstappen slipping in the weekend‑average ordering compared with the very top of the standings, and the second seat’s turnover (Lawson → Tsunoda) and Lawson’s own ranking swing are evidence of a team still searching for a consistent setup window. That pattern — public upgrade plans but uneven early returns — is visible in both the technical coverage and the driver ranking data. citeturn6search4turn9view2
Driver vs car: disentangling development vs driver form
Teammate comparisons are the simplest control. When both team‑mates improve by similar margins across the same windows, that strongly implicates the car package. Where only one driver improves, driver‑specific setup or confidence gains are likelier. Liam Lawson’s example is instructive: his average ranking across the first seven events was 18.5, rising to 10.0 across the most recent seven — a big individual change that reflects both personal adaptation and the effect of Racing Bulls’ mid‑season tweaks (and which helps explain the Red Bull management moves around his seat). citeturn1view0turn6search3
Competitive implications for the title fight and sprint races
Measured ranking deltas shift the probability map. McLaren’s team‑wide upward shift in weekend rankings and consistent 1–2 results push them into clear favourite territory for both championships in the second half; teams with asymmetric intra‑garage deltas (one driver up, one flat) are more likely to trade places and cause tactical sprint anomalies. Red Bull’s upgrades, if they deliver parity in tyre life, would be the clearest single threat to McLaren — but until that driveability fix is manifest in matching team‑mate deltas, McLaren’s margin looks durable. citeturn4search4turn6search4
Limitations and suggested follow‑ups
- Small windows and randomness: single‑race incidents or weather can skew averages over short windows. Expand windows or weight by session reliability to reduce noise.
- Confounding strategy: strategy and reliability can mask raw pace; pair ranking deltas with qualifying differentials and long‑run stint data for a fuller view.
- Recommended live metrics: per‑weekend qualifying gap to team‑mate, stint‑by‑stint long‑run degradation, and pit‑stop time consistency.
Data and next steps
This mid‑season window — using The Race’s driver rankings as a consistent, weekend‑level proxy and checked against team commentary from McLaren, Sauber and others — gives a practical, evidence‑first way to identify which upgrades have produced on‑track gains. The clearest winners through August are McLaren (planned, phased rollout and clear team‑wide uplift) and Sauber (floor‑driven drivability gains); Williams and Red Bull show targeted or partial gains but with more variance to resolve. citeturn1view0turn5search0turn4search0
And the next chapter? That’s still being written: the post‑shutdown upgrade windows and the first races after Zandvoort will show whether the mid‑season movers can translate gains into sustained second‑half advantage.