Has Monza Really Made Mercedes the Favourite Again?

The moment I realized things had changed didn't come from lap time sheets, but from a small number tucked into the right corner of the data screen: Mercedes' average top speed at the Monza speed traps. It's a number I've tracked for years, and it hasn't told me this story since the ground-effect era began in 2026. But here, in mid-September, it was telling a different story. I've spent 35 years watching this sport, from the coaching bench in Melbourne to sleepless nights reviewing telemetry from European races. And there's a rule I learned in my early days: diagrams don't lie, but the people reading them can. So when the headline from the F1 website asked whether Monza had made Mercedes betting favourites again, I didn't rush to believe the answer. I started looking for the knots in the web. Monza is a unique web. It's unlike any other circuit on the calendar. With over 80% of the lap taken at full throttle, it turns the race into a problem of aerodynamic drag, engine efficiency, and slipstreaming. In that context, the question about Mercedes isn't simply a question about form. It's a question about shape. The shape of a car designed to cut through the air with the least resistance possible. What I saw from the Monza data began to paint a clearer picture. Mercedes brought to Monza a rear wing with a significantly lower angle of attack than their direct rivals. This isn't new – they've done the same in the past. But what's new is how they combined it with a refined floor. On the tactical map, emotion is the coordinate people often forget, but here, I'm looking at a purely technical coordinate. And that coordinate shows a car capable of reaching a top speed about 3-4 km/h higher than Red Bull at key speed traps, while still maintaining stability in medium-speed corners. Data is a refuge, but stories are home. And the story here isn't just about the car. It's about how Mercedes has learned to re-read their own design. After two years of struggling with the ground-effect concept – a concept they once dominated before it became the new regulation – they seem to have found a different path to exploit it. Instead of trying to copy Red Bull's design, they've returned to their original philosophy: a car born to be fast on high-speed circuits. But here I must stop and ask a question that data cannot answer: is the top speed at Monza a reliable signal for upcoming races? This is the execution blind spot I think many are overlooking. Monza is so unique a circuit that it can deceive even the most thorough analysts. A car optimized for Monza may not perform well at circuits with completely different characteristics, like Singapore with its slow corners and bumpy surface. A race is a web; I only look for the knot. And the knot of this story isn't whether Mercedes was fastest at Monza. It's whether this speed is a reproducible truth, or just an illusion created by the circuit's unique features. Based on my experience following races, I've seen too many teams fooled by a good result at a specific circuit. They invest too much in a development direction based on too small a data sample, and then pay the price at more important races. The first shock taught me to listen, the second taught me to write. And as I write about Mercedes now, I remember the lesson from the 2026 transfer window, when I advised Melbourne Victory to reject Nani based on his pressing data. My data wasn't wrong, but it missed a crucial element: inspiration. A team isn't just made of numbers. A race car isn't either. There's a human element in how an engineering team finds confidence from a good result, and that confidence can spread throughout the entire organization. For Mercedes, the question isn't just whether they can repeat their success at Monza. The bigger question is whether that success can change their development trajectory for the rest of the season. In a season where every team faces cost caps and limited development time, finding the right direction can create a ripple effect far greater than the result of a single race. I look at the standings and see Mercedes still third in the constructors' championship. But the gap to the front is closing. And at Monza, they showed something I haven't seen in them for two years: a car that can attack, not just defend. It's a subtle but important difference. A defensive car is designed not to lose positions. An attacking car is designed to gain positions. And at Monza, Mercedes gained positions in a way they haven't since the start of the ground-effect era. But I maintain a healthy skepticism. I've lived long enough in this sport to know that a good result at a special circuit can create unrealistic expectations. Diagrams don't lie, but the people reading them can. And I'm trying not to become one of those people who misread the map. So, has Monza really made Mercedes the favourite again? The short answer is: it's too early to say. The longer answer is: they've shown promising signs, but those signs need to be validated at other circuits. Monza is a test of speed, but a season is a test of consistency. And in this sport, consistency is the ultimate measure of greatness. The next race will give us a clearer answer. If Mercedes can maintain that top speed advantage at a circuit with average characteristics, then we can start talking about a real comeback. But if they're only fast at Monza, then it's just a flash, a blip on the radar. I'll be watching. I'm always watching. And I'll write about what I see, not what I hope to see.