Towards a great dream...

A perfect Texas weekend for Kimi Antonelli (10), who defied expectations by putting together a weekend in which he was consistently ahead of his rivals. Despite the penalty and his inability to fight back, George Russell (4) denied him the title by just two points. Get the champagne ready, gentlemen: in Mexico we could witness something truly wonderful.

...And great nostalgia

A performance to frame from our home-grown prince, Charles Leclerc (9), who, despite suffering as he watches his young rivals fulfil dreams he has long wished for, gave us one of his finest races of the season so far. His battle with Max Verstappen (8), back to fighting like a lion in the Red Bull, rekindled memories that have never been laid to rest: deep down, we deserve to experience a championship in which these two fight like mad until the final round. Hope dies last.

There is also room for Sir Lewis and Hadjar, more at the mercy of their cars than their team-mates but at least able to keep up with them (7). An extra note for our trusted boxer, with a request to FOM: show us Isack’s team radio more often, please – guaranteed entertainment!

Quick... but lost

Lando Norris (7-) was among the fastest on track, but lost his way in qualifying: this McLaren is leaking from every angle and, even though he finished fifth while Piastri (6) was seventh, it is truly disappointing for the reigning world champions to be heading towards the end of a season in which the good results achieved were merely a blinding illusion.

The only positive note from the race? Keeping a W17 behind them! Russell will be dreaming of that Papaya rear end for a couple of days.

Between confirmations, comebacks and the usual slaps

While Liam Lawson (8) once again swept aside the opposition to claim more extremely valuable points for Racing Bulls, Pierre Gasly returned to the points after a dark spell, bringing Alpine a single point as the battle with the Faenza team for fifth in the constructors’ standings drifts ever further away.

Finally, the usual song and dance for Williams, Haas, Aston Martin and Cadillac: the hope is that their respective factories are working hard to produce a far more respectable 2027. Amid all this chaos, however, one thing never changes: handing inexplicable penalties to poor Ollie.

Next round, Mexico

During de los Días de los Muertos, Kimi Antonelli will attempt to crown himself world champion: who knows whether he will treat us to some truly incredible costumes or looks. In the meantime, get the tissues ready – I warned you.

Speak to you very soon, my friends,

Your Rompipaddock.

Main cover and internal photos by Luca Martini / WHYOUT images

Leclerc and Hamilton were the fastest in Austin

However, these performances could do more harm than good to the atmosphere within Ferrari, especially when considering the upgrades introduced in Austin. Leclerc surprised everyone with his performance. No one was faster than him, while Hamilton was the second-fastest driver on track, his best lap in the final stint being a 1’38’’457. The problem, however, is that the lap times and the pace shown were the product of the two-stop strategy and Red Bull’s mistake.

Antonelli, who fitted the Hard tyres with 32 laps remaining and more than half the race still to run, could never have displayed comparable pace. And even if he could have, there would have been no point in doing so. The one-stop strategy put the Mercedes driver in a hugely advantageous position and, despite being around a second per lap slower than the Ferrari, he finished 13 seconds ahead.

The gap to Red Bull was also an illusion. The pace of the two SF-26s stemmed primarily from their correct use of the Hard compound, while the Milton Keynes team mistakenly ended its chances of finishing second by opting for the Mediums rather than the white-walled tyres.

The next two rounds could prove very difficult for Ferrari

Ferrari would do well not to get carried away. The upgrades brought to Austin are certainly a step forward, and that is a positive, but in just a few days the team will have to prepare to tackle a circuit that is very difficult for the Prancing Horse’s power unit. The 2,250 metres above sea level in Mexico City will put the Maranello team to a severe test. Because of the thin air, the Mexican and Brazilian Grands Prix could prove genuinely difficult events for the Prancing Horse.

Perhaps it will be necessary to wait until the final three events of the season to truly understand how much Ferrari has benefited from the upgrades introduced in Austin.

Photo: Ferrari

Hints of disappointment from Antonelli after the race. The possibility

That is probably why we saw a slightly disappointed Kimi after the race, when he was asked about his title chances ahead of the next event in Mexico. There, he simply needs to score at least two points to be certain of the title, and he could even be crowned champion with a retirement if neither Russell nor Hamilton manages to win the race.

For Kimi, it is practically almost done, and perhaps what bothers him most is the high probability that he could win the world championship without standing out in performance terms. A scenario that will probably come to pass, barring a genuine twist.

Antonelli is not the favourite in Mexico

The round in Mexico City will put the power unit under severe strain, further highlighting the problems and difficulties experienced by the teams in Austria. On that occasion, Verstappen, despite having a car still not on Mercedes' level, managed to cause the three-pointed star pairing plenty of problems. The race was won by Russell by 1.6s from Max and 1.9s from Antonelli.

Spielberg's altitude of 660 metres above sea level had already brought out the qualities of the Red Bull ICE on that occasion. Those strengths could be even more pronounced in Mexico, given that the track sits at 2,250 metres above sea level. The air will be far thinner.

Kimi's expression after the podium made clear how much the Italian wanted to be crowned champion at the end of an almost perfect race. The uncertainty over whether he can achieve that in Mexico did not allow him to fully enjoy the delights of his United States victory. It gave us the impression that the event soon to be held at the circuit named in memory of the Rodriguez brothers is, for him, the worst possible place to win the title.

Tequila or mojito? Perhaps he would have preferred a whisky

After the race, Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff assessed Antonelli's title prospects, stating that if the victory comes in Mexico, the celebrations will involve tequila, while if it comes in Brazil, a fine mojito will be the choice.

The title is now virtually in the bag and, as we have understood, Mercedes' main concerns are focused on preparations for the party. Whatever happens, it will be an alcohol-fuelled celebration, but perhaps, given what has been said about the possible outcome of the Mexican Grand Prix, Antonelli would have much preferred to celebrate the title with a good Texas whisky, which is said to be made with a particular variety of blue corn. Blue would also have been a fitting colour to accompany the Italian's first title.

Cover and in-article photos by Luca Martini / WHYOUT Images

The upgrades brought to the Texas circuit covered a wide range of areas on the car. Among the most conspicuous is the revised sidepod shape, which does not abandon the original concept but rather seeks to emphasise it, also reviving some ideas already seen on previous generations of cars featuring enhanced ground effect.

A very delicate step 

At this stage of the season, introducing such an extensive upgrade package was, as mentioned, an important moment for the Maranello team, but also an interim and risky one, given that its direct rivals — Mercedes, McLaren and Red Bull — have all struggled significantly to get their upgrades right when introducing them.

For once, Ferrari managed to ensure that the press did not burden the work of its technicians with needless expectations, keeping a low profile and stating that the gains from the new configuration would be very limited.

In reality, the quality of the work is not so much reflected in the stopwatch as in the fact that Ferrari has not lost sight of the car's direction, given that what was seen in Texas will presumably feed into the definition of next year's car in some way.

It is very easy to lose the plot with upgrades

Indeed, the first team to radically alter its car was Red Bull, which thoroughly revised the car's philosophy at the distant Miami Grand Prix, particularly with regard to the sidepods. It only managed to make the new concept work later in the season, from the Azerbaijan Grand Prix onwards.

McLaren and Mercedes, meanwhile, redefined the shapes of their cars between the Azerbaijan Grand Prix and Sepang, encountering far greater difficulties in making the new solutions work.

McLaren, which appeared to have rediscovered its competitiveness before introducing its B-spec version, seems to have taken a significant step backwards since radically overhauling the MCL40.

Mercedes, for its part, encountered the same difficulties, although these appear to have been overcome through a better understanding of the new car — and also masked by overwhelming superiority at power unit level.

Ferrari could have faced a similar situation. Instead, the new upgrade package worked very well in Austin, looking promising from the opening practice sessions and even putting the SF-26 in contention for pole position on Saturday, despite its now well-established engine deficit.

Despite the upgrades, the Maranello car retained its race strengths, having consistently performed better in race trim than in qualifying throughout the season. It demonstrated excellent competitiveness in Leclerc's hands as he finished second behind the untouchable Antonelli, and also with Hamilton, who would very likely have passed Verstappen in the closing stages had it not been for the Virtual Safety Car caused by Bottas's retirement.

This weekend's Mexican Grand Prix will represent a far more complex test for the SF-26, but also a much less representative one, as the circuit is located at high altitude and the power deficit to its rivals will be amplified considerably.
It would therefore be wrong to judge the quality of Ferrari's upgrades on the basis of what happens in Mexico City, although it should also be remembered that the SF-26 has been capable of delivering a few surprises.

Ultimately, the men at Maranello deserve applause. Throughout the season, they have introduced changes that have always been effective and have never left the team confused, as has instead happened with the other four top teams.

Second place in the constructors' championship, now effectively secured behind Mercedes, is thoroughly deserved and reflects the excellent chassis and development from which the SF-26 has benefited this season.

Mexico GP schedule

Friday 30 October
Free Practice 1: 19:30
Free Practice 2: 23:00

Saturday 31 October
Free Practice 3: 18:30
Qualifying: 22:00

Sunday 1 November
Race: 21:00

How to watch the Mexico GP on TV and streaming

The entire Mexico City GP weekend, like every round of the world championship, will be broadcast live on Sky and streamed on SkyGo. Practice, qualifying and the race will be available on Sky Sport F1 HD and Sky Sport Uno. Here is the schedule:

Friday – Free practice
FP1 (Friday 30 October, 19:30): live on Sky Sport F1 HD; streaming on SkyGo or Now TV
FP2 (Friday 30 October, 23:00): live on Sky Sport F1 HD; streaming on SkyGo or Now TV

Saturday – Free practice and qualifying
FP3 (Saturday 31 October, 18:30): live on Sky Sport F1 HD and Sky Sport Uno; streaming on SkyGo or Now TV
Q1, Q2 and Q3 (Saturday 31 October, 22:00): live on Sky Sport F1 HD and Sky Sport Uno; streaming on SkyGo or Now TV

Sunday – Race
Race (Sunday 1 November, 21:00): live on Sky Sport F1 HD and Sky Sport Uno; streaming on SkyGo or Now TV

The Grand Prix live on formula1.it

You can follow the weekend sessions live on formula1.it via the dedicated qualifying news article and the race live page, featuring statistics, infographics and images from the circuit. Follow us on X for all the latest updates in real time.

Leclerc may have been highly competitive during his stint on the Hard C2, lapping almost consistently one second faster than race leader Antonelli. The trouble was that Kimi won the GP, his ninth victory of the season, keeping Leclerc at a safe distance: 13 seconds, to be precise. Ferrari could not have fought for victory even with different choices. The reason? We will explain after reviewing the strategies adopted by the drivers during the United States GP.

The strategy recap

First of all, we can say that our prediction proved broadly consistent with the decisions made by the teams (read here). Before the race, we had already discussed some teams’ difficulties in managing the C3 compound, the yellow-walled tyre on this occasion. It was therefore more than logical to expect limited use of it during the GP.

That was indeed the case. Only five drivers chose to start on the C3: Antonelli, Russell, Piastri, Norris and Stroll. Colapinto and Bottas opted for the Hard C2, while everyone else selected the Soft C4.

The five sets of C3 used at the start were joined by another six, for a total of just 11 sets of C3 used in the race. Leclerc and Hamilton used it during the middle phase of the race, alongside Lindblad and Alonso. Verstappen used it for his third stint, with little success, while Bearman was running it at the time of his retirement.

The other 11 drivers instead opted for strategies involving only Soft and Hard tyres, even in the case of two-stop races. So, half the grid believed in the C3 in some way, while the other half decided to rule it out altogether.

All things considered, Antonelli won the GP with a one-stop Medium-Hard strategy, with Norris, Piastri and Russell following the same route without much success. Hadjar, Lawson, Gasly, Hulkenberg, Ocon and Perez also made one stop, using Soft-Hard.

Among the two-stop runners was Leclerc, who finished second with a Soft-Medium-Hard strategy, a solution used only by team-mate Hamilton. Verstappen finished third with a two-stop Soft-Soft-Medium strategy: no Hard tyres for him, just as for Lindblad and Alonso, who went Soft-Medium-Soft. There were also Soft-Hard-Soft strategies for Bortoleto and Sainz; Medium-Soft-Soft for Stroll; and Soft-Soft-Hard for Albon.

The Medium C3 was the least-used tyre, with 11 sets, while drivers used 18 sets of Hard C2s and 25 sets of Soft C4s. Bottas, Colapinto and Bearman retired from the race.

Mercedes still holds too great an advantage over Red Bull and Ferrari

Leclerc, Verstappen and Hamilton produced strong performances in Austin, but the picture to emerge from the United States GP is that Mercedes, particularly with Antonelli, holds a huge advantage over its most dangerous rivals. For a start, it had no hesitation in using the Medium C3, a tyre that worked brilliantly on its W17 from the opening laps to build a margin over Verstappen and Leclerc, who started on Softs. The performance on the Mercedes was so good that Kimi was able to cover 24 laps on it and make just one stop.

And this brings us back to the line from ‘Days of Thunder’: “Tyres win races.” Leclerc and Verstappen would never have been able to complete the race with one stop while maintaining the same level of competitiveness. A two-stop strategy was the right choice for them, unfortunately the only viable way of showing such a high level of performance.

Ferrari: a successful race considering the C3 stint

We can describe the American round as a successful event for Ferrari. Taking into account its use of the Medium C3 as well, the race result was very, very good. The Maranello team has often struggled with this tyre during the year and perhaps wanted to conduct a test. The difficulties generally emerge with track temperatures above 40°C, and Ferrari may have wanted to assess its behaviour, aided also by the 35°C track temperature.

In the opening part of the stint, its pace suffered somewhat compared with the Soft fitted by Verstappen; we are talking about the middle phase of the race. But Max then began to suffer degradation, from which Leclerc and Hamilton benefited. All in all, they were two good stints, better than expected, although Ferrari only held a significant advantage over Red Bull once it fitted the Hard C2. The white-walled tyre proved to be the perfect tyre for the SF-26.

The performance gap to Verstappen on the Medium C3 was enormous. There were two reasons for this: the first was the quality of the compound, and the second was Ferrari’s excellent choice to execute a powerful overcut on Max, lasting seven laps with Hamilton and eight with Leclerc. Had the teams had two sets available, we would have seen a far more interesting race. Unfortunately, no team considered that possibility.

Ferrari, all things considered, made no mistakes in its tyre selection. Choosing the Medium allowed the team to conduct an important test, even if it was not entirely representative: another would need to be carried out with higher track temperatures to assess any progress.

There were no mistakes to report in strategic terms either. The call to put Hamilton on the Hards before Leclerc was dictated by the fact that Lewis was battling Hadjar from a distance in an attempt to avoid having to overtake him after the stop. Unfortunately, he failed by a gap of two seconds, as the pair were lapping at exactly the same pace: the difference was in the order of a few tenths per lap. Once on the Hards, it was very easy for him to clear Isack.

Leclerc was always faster than Hamilton, in almost every phase of the weekend. Second place was thoroughly deserved for Charles. It was a shame about the late VSC, which denied Hamilton the chance to pass Verstappen and join his team-mate on the podium. The overall performance is there, but to win, you must also know how to manage the tyres. As long as there is a team that manages its tyres better, it will be difficult for that to happen.

Red Bull gets its tyre choice wrong at the end

For once, it was Red Bull that got its strategy wrong. Verstappen and his team did everything right until the third stint. The choice to complete two stints on Softs was bold, but still effective. The Dutchman mainly paid the price for having to tackle the final part of the race on Medium C3s, when the performance difference to the Hard C2 was truly enormous. Perhaps, with a different choice, we would be discussing a different result. Antonelli would have won regardless, but the fight for second place would have been even more compelling.

Marrafuschi: "Verstappen triggered a chain reaction"

As always, we conclude with the final comment from Pirelli motorsport director Dario Marrafuschi: “The United States GP was particularly interesting from a strategic point of view. All three compounds played a crucial role in the race and their behaviour was in line with the predictions derived from the work of recent days. The degradation levels confirmed what we had estimated after practice, and the one-stop strategy proved to be the most effective.”

“The two-stop strategies, on the other hand, were influenced by Max Verstappen’s decision to make an early pit stop. This generated a chain reaction. Those who had clear track, meanwhile, made good use of the benefits offered by a single stop. The level of wear was fairly high and essentially uniform among the teams. From the point of view of tyre appearance, too, the overall picture was very homogeneous, with some more evident differences especially on the Medium. The Hard rewarded those who decided to include it in their strategic plan. Leclerc was able to overtake Verstappen precisely thanks to its use,” concluded the Italian manager.

Cover and in-article photos: Ferrari

Graphics: Pirelli

The start: Verstappen and Leclerc in a fiery duel!

When the lights went out, Antonelli made an excellent start, while the Red Bull pair were slower away. Verstappen was immediately involved in an intense battle with Leclerc, who managed to overtake the Dutchman, but only for a few corners: the #3 reclaimed the position before the end of the opening lap. Hadjar slipped to fifth, pursued by Russell and the McLaren pair. Bearman also made a fine start, climbing into 10th.

Looking at the tyre compounds, the leading contenders made different choices: Verstappen, Hadjar, Leclerc and Hamilton started on softs, while Antonelli, Russell, Norris and Piastri opted for mediums. On lap 5 of 56, the top 10 was: ANT-VER-LEC-HAM-HAD-RUS-PIA-NOR-LAW-BEA.

Penalty for Russell as pit-stop strategies get under way

At the start, the Briton found himself battling with Piastri and went off track at Turn 13. The incident was investigated and the FIA decided to hand the Mercedes driver a five-second penalty for gaining an advantage. It was a completely different start to the race for Antonelli, who showed consistent pace that was clearly superior to that of his pursuers.

Verstappen and Hamilton in particular were struggling, and chose to make their first stops between laps 14 and 15: the Dutchman opted for another set of softs, while the Briton switched to mediums. Leclerc and Piastri also pitted on lap 16, with the Monegasque following Hamilton's choice and the McLaren driver trying hards; Norris also went for the hard compound.

Antonelli pits, Leclerc has a go

After an excellent stint on the medium tyre, the #12 temporarily surrendered the lead to make his stop on lap 24, fitting hard tyres; he rejoined in third, behind Leclerc and Verstappen. George Russell had made his stop a lap earlier, serving his penalty. On lap 28 of 56, the top 10 read: VER-LEC-ANT-HAM-NOR-HAD-PIA-RUS-HUL-ALO. Bearman was forced to retire with problems on his VF-26.

Antonelli quickly began setting benchmark times, closing the gap to Leclerc and Verstappen. The Dutchman, struggling badly with the balance of his RB22, was forced to pit again on lap 32 for medium tyres, dropping to fifth amid clear signs of frustration. Meanwhile, the Italian passed the Monegasque without difficulty to retake the lead. It was a very different story for George Russell, who was anonymous and battling Piastri for seventh place.

Further back, Lawson and Gasly held ninth and 10th respectively, maintaining as much as a six-second margin over Lindblad.

Final laps

While Antonelli continued to impress with some truly competitive laps, the Ferrari pair opted to pit for hard tyres; Leclerc rejoined in fourth and Hamilton in sixth. The Monegasque then put together some very quick laps, rapidly catching Norris and Verstappen to create a three-way fight for second place. 

While Verstappen managed to pass Norris, Leclerc overtook both of them within a few laps to move into second, 16 seconds behind the unchallenged Antonelli. Meanwhile, Hamilton attempted to attack Norris and Verstappen in a bid to snatch third. The #44 passed the #1 without difficulty and set his sights on Verstappen, but the Virtual Safety Car on lap 49, caused by Valtteri Bottas's Cadillac, put the Ferrari driver's charge on hold.

At the chequered flag, Kimi Antonelli claimed a superb victory, but the title celebrations are postponed until Mexico. Leclerc and Verstappen joined him on the podium; Hamilton was fourth and Russell eighth. The full classification follows.

Cover photo by Luca Martini / WHYOUT images

Click here to access the live coverage of the 2026 United States Grand Prix

The United States Grand Prix could prove to be one of the most important events of Andrea Kimi Antonelli's career. Should the Italian win, Hamilton finish fifth or lower, and Russell end the race in a position below ninth, the 20-year-old Mercedes driver would become the youngest world champion of all time. As early as Austin.

If it does not happen in Texas, Kimi will still have five more opportunities to achieve it. Today is just one round, and Antonelli will try to win it from pole position. Verstappen, second, and Leclerc, fourth, will try to spoil his party. Follow the live coverage to find out how it ends, and stay with us.

Follow the live coverage on our Twitter profile.

Official event hashtag: #USAGP

Other links for the 2026 United States Grand Prix

United States Grand Prix circuit and preview

Photo: X, Ferrari

Mercedes returns to the top

Despite continuing to ‘play’ with the new upgrade package introduced at the Bahrain Grand Prix in Malaysia, Mercedes reclaimed the most important position of all in Austin: ahead of every other team. Antonelli secured his seventh pole position of the season, doing a great job, although it was not entirely down to him. Kimi made good use of his rivals’ missteps and uncertainty.

Track temperatures remained fairly consistent throughout qualifying, and this appears to have caught some teams off guard, including Ferrari.

Antonelli took pole by improving his Q2 time by just over two tenths, with Verstappen following more or less the same pattern. The driver who made the biggest step forward from Q2 to Q3 was Hadjar, who improved by more than six tenths to take P3. Hamilton made a similar improvement, but his 1’34’’311 was only good enough for P5.

Leclerc, Russell and Norris, meanwhile, were slower than their previous benchmarks and slipped down the order. Charles would have been second with his Q2 time, while Lando lost around half a second.

Ferrari spoke of cooling temperatures, but that was not really the case. The asphalt remained at a consistent 38°-39 °C from the very early stages of Q1 through to Q3. Perhaps they were expecting an increase, as usually happens, but it never came. The fact is that this may have compromised qualifying for these three drivers and prevented a clear improvement in lap times between Q2 and Q3.

[[[og]]]

VCARB, Alpine and Audi on the rise

With the top teams covered, let us move on to the rest. In Texas, we can say that the group consistently fighting for points every weekend has now also taken shape. Within two tenths and around a second behind the leader sit VCARB, Alpine and Audi. Further back are an improving Aston Martin and Haas, while at the rear of the field is a Williams in free fall, increasingly close to Cadillac levels of performance.

As the driver graph shows, the top-team group is extremely compact. Looking further to the right, we believe Gasly, Hulkenberg and Alonso deserve a special mention, having recently done a much more impressive job than their team-mates. The intra-team battle between Lawson and Lindblad at VCARB is particularly exciting. The two Faenza drivers appear to be pushing each other on, to the team’s great benefit.

Cover and interior photos by Luca Martini / WHYOUT Images

Difficult, but not impossible, given that Lewis starts fifth and Russell will line up in P6. The Austin circuit is, among other things, a particularly demanding track for the drivers. Its bumps could push them to the limit physically.

Pirelli preview - Circuit of the Americas - 56 laps

Furthermore, for this edition, Pirelli has chosen the middle compounds in its range in order to increase degradation and the likelihood of a race featuring more than one pit stop (in 2025, the selection was C1-C3-C4). Before sharing our own view, though, let us look at what Pirelli motorsport director Dario Marrafuschi said ahead of the GP: “The C4, already in practice, confirmed a performance gap over the C3 in terms of grip and lap time. This will broaden the range of options available to the teams. That is also because the Medium and Soft proved to be quite close over race distance. On paper, the one-stop strategy represents the most effective option. Soft-Medium could be the most popular choice to maximise the grip advantage offered by the C4.”

“The Hard remains a valid option for the second stint, regardless of whether drivers choose to start on Soft or Medium. If there is a neutralisation in the early stages of the race, some may decide to make a stop and complete the event using only the C2. If degradation proves higher than expected, a two-stop Soft-Medium-Soft strategy could also be considered. In terms of total race time, the one-stop strategy is close to the two-stop option. For the two-stop strategy to work, track position and possible traffic must be taken into account. The teams' choices will be heavily influenced by temperatures and track evolution,” the Italian manager concluded in comments to Pirelli.

Far from straightforward choices for the teams

We agree with all of that, although there is one point we would add. Several teams have struggled to manage the C3 over the course of the year, the compound serving as the Medium tyre this weekend. If track temperatures remain below 40°C, as they did in qualifying, that could help drivers manage it. But should temperatures rise above that threshold, teams will probably lean more towards a strategy involving the Soft and Hard tyres to a greater extent.

That does not mean the Medium will be ruled out. Its use will depend heavily on the characteristics of each car. We expect the start to feature a majority of Soft tyres, with a fair number of yellow-walled compounds too. Afterwards, the Hard, also given Norris' competitiveness on Friday (read here), could be a valid option. We expect Ferrari and McLaren to take this route.

With temperatures above 40°C, we believe it will be almost an inevitable choice for Hamilton and Leclerc. Degradation could become a crucial factor and, at that point, an attacking S-H-S strategy would not be a bad idea. Unfortunately, races with high degradation and the C3 assigned as the Medium are not the kind of events in which Ferrari excels. However, if Lewis and Charles can maximise the potential of the C4, we could still see an entertaining race. The success of their weekend will depend above all on this.

As for Antonelli and Verstappen, neither should have any particular issues starting on the C3 Medium. They too have problems to solve with this compound, but the C4, especially in high temperatures, could have a rather short lifespan in the race. In their case, the C3 could make a better contribution in the first stint but, as Marrafuschi stated, it is difficult to predict exactly what choices the teams will make. Track temperatures will play a crucial role today.

Cover and interior photos by Luca Martini / WHYOUT Images

Kimi Antonelli’s pole position lap for the United States Grand Prix was a genuine statement of intent, especially given that the top five drivers on the grid are covered by just three tenths of a second. His margin over Verstappen, who will start alongside him on the front row tomorrow, is almost two tenths.

Leclerc’s Q3 remains a mystery: his Q2 time would have put him on the front row.
There is no mystery for Ferrari, however: it has been down on power throughout the 2026 season despite having a chassis capable of matching the opposition.

Antonelli’s pole was not just about outright power

It is therefore worth examining where and how the Italian driver was able to build such a gap over the Dutch champion, who appeared far from satisfied with his final qualifying session.

Under acceleration after Turn 1, Antonelli’s W17 puts almost a tenth between itself and the RB22, but Verstappen is able to move ahead through the Esses, even holding an advantage of 0.050s.

From that point, however, Verstappen has to concede.

Between Turns 7 and 11, Antonelli delivers the first decisive blow, earning himself the near two-tenth advantage he will carry to the end of the lap.
As well as being far less smooth through the final corners of the Esses, Verstappen is much less ready on the throttle out of Turn 9 and is also less able to exploit the electric power.

Verstappen might have hoped to hold on through the slower section between Turns 12 and 15, but this is where the lack of grip complained of by the Dutchman at the end of the session becomes apparent. It costs him almost a tenth to the Italian, who instead appears perfectly at ease.

At that stage, Antonelli has the energy to accelerate more effectively than Verstappen through the horseshoe between Turns 15 and 19, gaining further ground and reaching around Turn 20 with a three-and-a-half-tenth advantage.

From there, Antonelli appears less effective than Verstappen, probably because of how he chose to manage the available energy. Indeed, he crosses the line more than 10km/h slower, losing almost half of his advantage.

Ferrari, as ever, down on power

For Ferrari, a theme that has recurred since the start of the season emerges once again.
From a chassis perspective, the SF-26 is the equal of its rivals and perhaps even has something more, but the data from the sections where outright power is required is discouraging.
By Turn 11, Leclerc has a two-tenth advantage over Antonelli.
On the straight between Turns 11 and 12 alone, Leclerc loses three tenths overall, being comprehensively beaten under acceleration and giving away more than 15km/h in top speed.

Antonelli lands another similar blow under acceleration between Turns 19 and 20.

Proof that Antonelli produced a truly outstanding lap and that this pole position was not simply the result of the Mercedes power unit is that the gap to Ferrari also grows in the slow section, showing how uncomfortable Leclerc was with the car on his final attempt.

The mystery of Leclerc’s Q3. Could he have been on the front row?

But what happened to Charles Leclerc?
The Monegasque had set a 1:34.198 in Q2, a time that would have earned him a front-row start.

Where was another opportunity squandered, enough to test the patience of Maranello’s number 16 driver?

There were two critical points: the first between Turns 8 and 9, the second on the exit of Turn 15, before the horseshoe leading to Turn 19.

In the first instance, Leclerc makes an error, probably through a loss of grip, given that the gap increases while at the same time he is applying much more throttle than on his best lap.
It could simply have been driver error or a loss of grip, but in any case this is the first point at which Leclerc is unable to replicate his performance in the third qualifying session.

It is more difficult to understand what happened at Turn 15, which is the most obvious peak in terms of the time loss.
Leclerc approaches the corner carrying much less speed, more than 10km/h down; there are no substantial differences in throttle percentage, but on the Q3 lap the Monegasque is forced to select first gear slightly earlier.

These are probably the points at which the rear-locking issues Leclerc complained about over the radio at the end of his in-lap occurred.
It is possible that track grip changed during the final phase of qualifying and that Ferrari suffered more than the other cars, something Ferrari’s engineers will in any case need to investigate carefully.

Another missed opportunity for Ferrari, which has no clear explanation.

Until today, it was difficult to imagine this scenario unfolding in Austin, but after qualifying, with Antonelli starting from pole, Hamilton from P5 and Russell from P6, we can say that Kimi will have his chance. Naturally, the Italian only needs to focus on winning. The rest is entirely out of his hands.

Fate will decide whether the title is won in Texas, Mexico or, at the latest, Brazil. Starting from P2, Verstappen will certainly be looking to spoil the party. With the Dutchman in that position, entertainment is virtually guaranteed.

United States GP starting grid - formation lap at 21:00 Italian time

There were no significant investigations by the Federation following qualifying, so the grid is almost an exact reflection of the qualifying result. The penalties relate exclusively to power unit component changes. Lindblad (VCARB) received a five-place penalty and will start from P14, Colapinto (Alpine) will line up in P21 after receiving a 10-place penalty, while Bortoleto (Audi) will take part in the race from P22 after being handed a record 80-place grid penalty. Formation lap at 21:00 Italian time.

Why are we referring to a provisional grid? Because the teams' technicians could still encounter problems with the cars before tomorrow's race and, should it become necessary to replace a component subject to regulatory restrictions, the Federation would be forced to drop the driver concerned by several places on the grid.

Cover photo by Luca Martini / WHYOUT Images

Internal photo: FIA

Ferrari faces another drop in performance

Charles and Lewis are able to find speed with ease, while the pace shown in the race simulations during FP2 is equally promising. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, the team then suddenly loses its way. If the decline begins around FP3, the weekend becomes a disaster; more commonly, however, the drop-off is barely noticeable… until the drivers show it in qualifying, losing performance between Q2 and Q3. That was also the scenario seen in Texas qualifying.

At first, including during previous weekends, we had suggested that it was not solely down to the car’s performance. A quick car is always quick, just as a slow car is always slow. The SF-26 is showing far too much inconsistency and, by starting from lower on the grid than it should, it is then unable to maximise the final result.

The problem must be solved

But what could be causing these episodes? Firstly, an inability to keep up with the evolution of the track, which appears to have affected the result in Austin too. In our view, this is one of the most serious causes. The second could perhaps stem from an inability to reconcile simulator data with that collected at the track. Then there is a third possibility: errors.

To err is human, but the fact that something always goes wrong whenever Ferrari has an opportunity to perform well… is becoming quite serious, and the drivers are growing tired of it. Especially Charles, who has experienced the team’s misfortunes first-hand for eight years now. Ferrari still has zero pole positions in 2026 and, considering that it often has the race pace to stay close to its rivals and fight for important positions, it is clear that there is something to resolve at Maranello.

Cover and in-article photos by Luca Martini / WHYOUT Images

Q1: Leclerc starts strongly, Mercedes struggle

Valtteri Bottas and Sergio Perez were the first to take to the track as they waited for the rest of the field. After the opening runs, Charles Leclerc led the way with a 1'35''200, just thousandths ahead of Verstappen and Hadjar. Hamilton was fourth and Antonelli seventh, with the latter, like Russell and Piastri, opting for the medium tyre. The Audi pair and Lawson were also inside the top 10. With four minutes remaining, Antonelli improved to move into fifth, while Lando Norris went fastest in the closing seconds. Eliminated in Q1 were Ocon, Stroll, Sainz, Albon, Perez and Bottas.

Q2: Max looks ominous, Racing Bulls shine

The drivers quickly headed out to set their first laps. This time, Max Verstappen led the field with a 1'34''471, ahead of Norris and Antonelli. Hamilton was fifth, with Leclerc seventh and half a second off the Dutchman's time. After a brief pause, the drivers returned to the track for the final runs, except Verstappen and Norris, who remained in the pits, to decide who would progress to Q3.

At the chequered flag, Charles Leclerc set the fastest time, followed by Antonelli and Russell, while Hamilton was seventh. Racing Bulls performed well, with both Lawson and Lindblad progressing to Q3. Eliminated in Q2 were Gasly, Hulkenberg, Bortoleto, Colapinto, Alonso and Bearman.

Q3: Kimi catches everyone by surprise

With the final 12 minutes under way, Russell and Antonelli were the first to head out, followed by the rest of the field. At the end of the first runs, Antonelli held provisional pole with a 1'34''035, ahead of Verstappen and Hadjar. Leclerc was fourth and Hamilton sixth.

The drivers returned to the pits for a brief pause before heading back out for the final runs that would determine the starting grid. At the chequered flag, nobody improved: Kimi Antonelli claimed pole position, ahead of Verstappen and Hadjar; Leclerc was fourth and Hamilton fifth.  Russell was sixth, while Lando Norris had his time deleted for track limits. Below is the full classification, with Lindblad, Bortoleto and Colapinto set to serve penalties.

Cover photo by Luca Martini / WHYOUT images

The testing did not compromise the drivers' running, with Hamilton and Leclerc finishing the final practice session first and third respectively. The potential is there. The Monegasque was third on C3 Medium tyres, rather than Softs. On the C4s, he was unable to set a meaningful time because of track limits.

Red Bull, meanwhile, endured an inconsistent session and heads into qualifying with a few unknowns. Mercedes and McLaren appear to have focused more on race pace so far. These should therefore be interesting sessions, particularly Q3.

Before our Qualifying live coverage begins, let us take a look at Pirelli's tyre allocation for the United States GP: the C2 Hard, C3 Medium and C4 Soft compounds will be available, which is the middle selection from the range (photo: Pirelli graphic).

The pit lane opens at 23:00 Italian time. Live coverage from 22:45.

LIVE

Photo: X, Ferrari

Green light

The session got under way at 19:30 Italian time, but the circuit was virtually empty in the opening minutes as far as the top teams were concerned. Perez and Colapinto were the only drivers to head out immediately, at the wheel of the Cadillac and Alpine respectively, while the front-runners chose to wait.

It was not until the final 40 minutes that the first driver from a top team appeared on track. Lewis Hamilton was the first to emerge, setting the session's first meaningful benchmark with a 1:36.716 to move provisionally to the top. The Ferrari of the number 44 also featured the distinctive green flow-vis paint used to analyse aerodynamic airflow.

As the minutes passed, the track became busier and the first representative lap times began to arrive. Verstappen, Norris and Hamilton traded places at the top of the timesheets, while Leclerc and Norris made the same mistake at Turn 12, with both having their laps deleted.

However, the pair immediately returned to the attack. Leclerc moved to the top on the yellow-compound tyre, while Norris, on the red compound, placed himself among the front-runners in third.

Meanwhile, Antonelli returned to the pits to address a number of issues he had reported to Bono over the radio. Once back on track, the Mercedes driver appeared to find performance immediately, posting an excellent 1:35.015. However, the lap was deleted shortly afterwards after he exceeded track limits at Turn 9.

Piastri, Hamilton and Verstappen also went for fresh runs in the closing stages. The Australian climbed to sixth, while Hamilton and Verstappen took first and second respectively, bringing to a close a third practice session that appeared to provide the final important indications ahead of qualifying.

Article photo x.com

Cover photo x.com

Behind Leclerc, we saw a very promising Norris on the Hard tyre (read here), with Verstappen and Antonelli ready to match the race pace of the number 16 Ferrari. The Prancing Horse has brought a substantial upgrade package to test at COTA, while Mercedes is still carrying out its analysis of what it introduced at the Bahrain Grand Prix in Malaysia. There is still work to do before qualifying, and the pecking order could change.

Before we begin our live coverage of FP3, let us take a look at Pirelli’s tyre allocation for the United States GP: the Hard C2, Medium C3 and Soft C4 compounds will be available, the middle combination in the range (photo: Pirelli graphic).

The pit lane opens at 19:30 Italian time. Live coverage from 19:15.

LIVE

Photo: X, Ferrari

The first official FIA documents confirm this strategy: three drivers have been penalised for a total of 35 grid places. Franco Colapinto, Gabriel Bortoleto and Arvid Lindblad have introduced new components beyond the seasonal limits. FIA documents No. 14, 15 and 16, published on 23 October, update the picture regarding replacements and penalties for the United States Grand Prix.

The 2026 regulations allow each driver to use four internal combustion engines (ICE), four turbochargers (TC), four exhaust systems (EXH), three MGU-Ks, three Energy Stores (ES), three control electronics (PU-CE) and six auxiliary components (PU-ANC).

F1 2026 power units: the updated situation in Austin

Table updated with the FIA report of 23 October 2026 and stewards' decisions No. 14, 15 and 16. The changes include new components for Colapinto, Bortoleto, Lindblad, Piastri, Antonelli and Sainz.

Orange = seasonal allocation exhausted. Red = regulatory limit exceeded. Red values do not automatically result in a further penalty in Austin. The table incorporates all replacements confirmed in the FIA report of 23 October.

Ferrari and Verstappen: virtually no margin left

The most delicate situation among the drivers who have not yet exceeded any allocation concerns Charles Leclerc, Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen. Both Ferrari drivers have used four ICEs, four turbochargers, four exhaust systems, three MGU-Ks, three Energy Stores, three PU-CEs and six auxiliary components. Ferrari have exhausted every available allocation for both drivers. Any new component introduced in one of those categories would therefore exceed the seasonal limit. That does not necessarily mean further replacements are ruled out: teams can refit components already used, provided they remain serviceable and comply with the regulations.

Verstappen's situation is almost identical, with the sole difference being the auxiliary components, which stand at five of the six permitted. The Dutchman therefore retains a minimal margin, while the comparison with his team-mate highlights two entirely different paths in reliability management.

Red Bull and Aston Martin: the most worrying figures

Isack Hadjar continues to hold the record for internal combustion engine replacements, having used eight ICEs against the four permitted, alongside seven turbochargers, seven exhaust systems and eight auxiliary components. The Frenchman has also already exceeded the limit for MGU-Ks, Energy Stores and control electronics.

Even more problematic, given the overall number of excess components, is the situation of the two Honda-powered Aston Martins. Fernando Alonso has used nine PU-ANCs and seven Energy Stores, while Lance Stroll has reached eight and seven respectively. Both have also reached five ICEs, six turbochargers, five MGU-Ks and six PU-CEs.

Mercedes: Russell and Antonelli already over the limit

The previous Singapore Grand Prix radically changed George Russell's situation, as he introduced six new out-of-allocation elements between Friday and Saturday. The Briton arrives in Austin with five ICEs, five turbochargers, five exhaust systems, four MGU-Ks, four Energy Stores and four PU-CEs.

Kimi Antonelli had already exceeded certain limits at Monza. The Italian driver has used five ICEs, four Energy Stores and four PU-CEs, but still has one unit available for turbochargers and exhaust systems, as well as one MGU-K. He also introduced his sixth auxiliary component in Austin, reaching the seasonal limit for PU-ANCs as well.

Other drivers already over the limit include Lando Norris, Alexander Albon, Carlos Sainz, Arvid Lindblad, Oliver Bearman and Franco Colapinto. Gabriel Bortoleto joins them in Austin, while Oscar Piastri has reached the limit for ICEs, Energy Stores and PU-CEs without yet exceeding it.

Austin penalties: Bortoleto, Colapinto and Lindblad move back

The first penalties of the United States Grand Prix concern three drivers. The most heavily penalised is Gabriel Bortoleto, who loses 20 places on the grid for introducing a fourth Energy Store and fourth control electronics unit. Both exceed the seasonal limit of three units for the first time, resulting in ten places apiece, as set out in FIA document No. 15.

The Technical Delegate's report also confirms that Bortoleto has introduced a fourth internal combustion engine, fourth turbocharger, fourth exhaust system and sixth auxiliary component. All of those replacements remain within the seasonal limits and do not result in further penalties.

Franco Colapinto also receives a ten-place grid penalty after introducing a fourth PU-CE on his Alpine. Document No. 14 confirms that this is the first excess in that category, penalised under Article B8.2.8a of the FIA Regulations.

Arvid Lindblad, meanwhile, has fitted his sixth internal combustion engine of the season to the Racing Bulls. Having already exceeded the limit of four ICEs, the latest replacement results in a five-place grid penalty, in accordance with FIA document No. 16 and Article B8.2.8b.

In total, the three decisions result in 35 places of grid drops. Bortoleto's 20-place penalty means he will start from the back of the grid under the regulation covering accumulated penalties of at least 15 places. For Colapinto and Lindblad, the drops will instead be applied to the grid according to qualifying results and any further penalties.

One of the FIA reports records new auxiliary components for Oscar Piastri, Kimi Antonelli and Carlos Sainz as well: their fifth, sixth and fifth of the season respectively. None of these replacements incurs a penalty.

While we share Marrafuschi's view, we believe the C2 could instead prove to be a fairly widely used set during the GP. There are two reasons for this. Although teams can complete consistent long runs in practice, the situation becomes somewhat more critical in the race, and already today the C3 and C4 have not given the impression that they can last for long. The other reason concerns the C3: not everyone is comfortable with this compound.

Leclerc quickest on Softs, but Norris better on Hards

Among the teams struggling with the C3 is Ferrari, although it showed very respectable pace on the C4 Soft (should it opt for a Soft-Hard strategy). Among the drivers to run both Softs and Mediums and get the most from them was certainly Charles Leclerc. However, Norris, whom we believe held something back in the qualifying simulations, did even better on the C2 Hard.

The Softs worked best on Leclerc's and Verstappen's cars. However, they showed a loss of performance after a handful of laps. With Norris, meanwhile, the C2 Hard proved highly consistent and durable. That is why we believe it will be one of the best options to turn to during the race.

The McLaren threat, favoured by the Hards

McLaren and Lando Norris have left the teams guessing and, as the only ones to have tested the C2, they could hold a significant advantage during the GP. That is, provided they decide to use the compound despite the expectations. At present, the ranking of the best long runs has Norris leading Leclerc, Verstappen and Antonelli, all of them very closely matched. It will also be interesting to see how their respective team-mates recover, having appeared slightly behind during the day in terms of understanding the tyres and the car set-up.

Cover photo by Luca Martini / WHYOUT Images

In FP1, Ferrari looked particularly strong and, given the substantial upgrade package introduced at Austin, that was far from a foregone conclusion. Red Bull, McLaren and Mercedes also appeared competitive, with the papaya team and the Stuttgart marque seemingly keeping their cards close to their chest. We will see whether they reveal a little more in second practice.

Before beginning our live coverage of FP2, let us take a look at the Pirelli tyre compounds for the United States GP: the Hard C2, Medium C3 and Soft C4 will be available, namely the middle combination from the range (image: Pirelli graphic).

Pit lane opens at 23:00 Italian time. Live coverage from 22:45.

LIVE

Cover photo by Luca Martini / WHYOUT Images

After the GP, it emerged that he himself had decided to stay out, following his instincts rather than the pit wall's strategy, which had already let him down at Sepang. On that occasion, Hamilton publicly stressed that he had trusted three engineers rather than his own judgement, paying a high price for relying on the data. There, they had not split the strategies, partly because Ferrari's strength is also its weakness: it has two leading drivers, two exceptional talents. So which one do you give the riskier strategy to?

Speaking to the media, the Briton addressed another critical aspect of his Ferrari campaign: "My job is to adapt to the team's plans, but I tend to challenge the team and conventions, and that is what has brought me to my status." It is a proactive approach which, however, can quickly be perceived as arrogance by those who do not want to take orders from the «new arrival». It brings out the familiar Italian refrain of "we've always done it this way, who are you to change the plans?" Yet Hamilton has every quality needed to be listened to; it simply seems that Maranello has no interest in doing so. Perhaps there are corporate constraints, targets to meet and other objectives unknown to us.

Cover photo by Luca Martini / WHYOUT Images

The opening free practice session has just concluded, with teams following different run plans from the outset. Audi, among them, took to the track with so-called aerodynamic rakes, tools used to gather data on airflow behaviour around the car.

In the early stages, Charles Leclerc set the benchmark with a 1:39.152 on medium tyres. His team-mate Lewis Hamilton then moved into second before reigning world champion Lando Norris went quickest with a 1:38.715 lap.

Max Verstappen, meanwhile, reported some difficulty turning the steering wheel to his pit wall over the radio, although he encountered no further issues during the session.

With 49 minutes remaining, Hamilton returned to the track and set the fastest time of 1:37.230. This sparked a close intra-team battle at Ferrari, with Leclerc lowering the benchmark by around four tenths of a second as he crossed the line on his next lap.

Once the session had passed the half-hour mark, the drivers fitted soft tyres to begin their qualifying simulations. Leclerc then set the fastest time of 1:36.052, but Verstappen’s response was immediate: the Red Bull driver went as quick as 1:35.860. However, his lap was deleted by race control for exceeding track limits, handing top spot back to the Monegasque driver.

During the final minutes, the FIA, in agreement with all 11 teams, then decided to test the "low-grip" mode in order to resolve all the issues that emerged during the Sepang and Singapore weekends because of rain.

Looking at the standings, Charles Leclerc was therefore fastest in FP1 with a 1:36.052, followed by Max Verstappen on a 1:36.136, just 84 thousandths behind, and third overall with a 1:36.297. Kimi Antonelli, who will already have his first championship match point on Sunday, finished only eighth. Below is the full classification for the session.

Unfortunately, the circuit is built on ground that is not particularly stable. It therefore requires constant resurfacing work to prevent excessive bumps, which can generate seriously high vertical G-forces for the drivers. The drivers have already voiced considerable concern about the issue. The conditions are different every year, which also makes it difficult to simulate what the teams will encounter on track using the modern systems now found in almost every factory.

Before we get into the weekend and find out what the situation will be, let us take a look at the Pirelli tyre allocation for the United States GP: C2 Hard, C3 Medium and C4 Soft compounds will be available — the middle selection in the range (image: Pirelli graphic).

Pit lane opens at 19:30 Italian time. Live coverage begins at 19:15.

LIVE

Photo: X, Ferrari

With the championship now entering its closing stages, Austin traditionally represents one of the final opportunities to introduce significant aerodynamic development packages. The teams are focusing on refining their cars, seeking to improve performance over the final races without compromising the balance already achieved. The new parts presented could therefore be among the final substantial updates of the 2026 season.

Ferrari has brought the most extensive package, making changes to the floor, floor fences, sidepods and diffuser. The aim is to increase aerodynamic downforce by improving the quality and stability of airflow directed towards the rear of the car. Racing Bulls has also introduced four updates, covering the wings, floor and bodywork, while McLaren has brought a new diffuser geometry alongside aerodynamic revisions around the front and rear wheels.

Audi has continued its development programme with three changes refining the front end, complementing its recent aerodynamic package. Alpine, meanwhile, has focused its changes at the rear, with revisions to the floor and rear wing. Red Bull's updates are more limited, refining the front wing and introducing a reliability modification, while Cadillac has worked on floor aerodynamic stability and power unit cooling.

The common theme is once again aerodynamic flow management, with particular attention paid to floor efficiency and rear downforce generation. At a circuit such as Austin, characterised by high-speed corners, changes of direction, long straights and significant elevation changes, the ability to maintain stable aerodynamic behaviour across different operating conditions is crucial.

The other four teams — Mercedes, Williams, Aston Martin and Haas — have not declared any updates for the United States weekend.

Here are all the official changes brought by the teams for the 2026 United States Grand Prix.

McLaren

McLaren has introduced three updates affecting the front-wheel area, rear-wheel area and diffuser. Changes to the front ducting and aerodynamic elements, developed alongside the suspension fairings, are intended to improve flow management. At the rear, local aerodynamic elements have been revised, while the new diffuser geometry is designed to increase aerodynamic downforce across the entire speed range, improving the car's performance in different running conditions.

Mercedes

No updates.

Red Bull

Red Bull has introduced two targeted changes in the front area of the car. A small aerodynamic profile has been added to the recently introduced front-wing configuration, linked to the evaluation of tyre surface temperature, generating greater local downforce without significantly altering flow stability. The second change concerns reliability, with an elastomeric protection piece revised to reduce the risk of tearing under greater steering lock. These are therefore refinements to the existing configuration, rather than a new aerodynamic package.

Ferrari

Ferrari has brought one of the weekend's most significant aerodynamic packages to Austin, with four closely linked areas of intervention. The changes affect the floor body, floor fences, sidepod geometry and diffuser. The objective is to increase the downforce generated by the floor while improving the energy and stability of airflow directed towards the rear of the car. Particularly significant is the diffuser revision, whose expansion profile has been optimised to exploit the improved quality of incoming air and generate more downforce efficiently.

Williams

No updates.

Visa Cash App Racing Bulls

Racing Bulls has introduced a fairly extensive development package covering the front wing, rear wing, floor and bodywork. The new front-wing endplate improves airflow control around the tyres, while the rear-wing flaps have been modified to generate more downforce. The most significant changes, however, concern the floor, with several aerodynamic elements revised, and the bodywork, reprofiled around the shoulder and undercut areas. The two modifications work together to improve airflow quality along the sidepods and towards the rear of the car, increasing overall aerodynamic downforce.

Aston Martin

No updates.

Haas

No updates.

Audi

Audi has continued the evolution of its car with three changes focused on the front area. The new brake duct changes the cooling characteristics and provides aerodynamic benefits, while revisions to the floor fences are intended to improve local flow management. The mirror stay has also been redesigned to suit the updated configuration. These are developments complementary to the recent aerodynamic package, intended to further improve its overall performance.

Alpine

Alpine has introduced two updates, both focused on the rear of the car. The first is a redesign of the rear floor corner, intended to improve the interaction of airflow with surrounding aerodynamic elements and increase local downforce. The second concerns the rear wing, with a new profile for its second and third elements, designed to improve airflow quality and increase overall downforce. Both changes are intended to improve the aerodynamic performance of the rear of the car.

Cadillac

Cadillac has brought two updates to Austin dedicated to aerodynamic stability and cooling. Revisions to the front floor fences are intended to improve airflow directed towards the rear of the car and, above all, reduce the car's sensitivity to ride-height changes, while maintaining overall aerodynamic downforce. The second change concerns the upper sidepod cooling louvres, modified to increase power unit cooling capacity while limiting aerodynamic penalties.

Braking demands

According to simulations by Brembo engineers, Austin is the most demanding US circuit for the braking system, with a difficulty index of 4 out of 5. This is despite there being only six braking zones per lap, for less than 15 seconds of total brake use: four are classified as Hard, one as Medium and one as Light.

The most demanding braking zone is at Turn 1, where the cars slow from 305 to 93km/h in 3.11 seconds over 144 metres. Deceleration reaches 4.3g, with 123kg of pedal force and braking power of 1,760kW.

The comparison with 2025 once again highlights the differences introduced by the new-generation cars. At Turn 12 last year, drivers applied 130kg of pressure to the pedal while experiencing 4.2g of deceleration. This year, the expected figures fall to 110kg and 4g respectively, but above all the braking distance increases by 40 metres, from 126 to 166 metres, while the time required to slow down rises from 2.72 to 3.42 seconds.

Power unit: FIA limits for Austin

The official Power Unit Information document published by the FIA on 22 October sets out the energy parameters for the United States Grand Prix. The maximum energy that can be recovered by the MGU-K is set at 8.5MJ per lap in qualifying and in the race without Overtake Mode, rising to 9MJ when the overtaking system is active. In free practice, the limit is 9MJ, as it is on non-race out-laps. These values make energy recovery particularly important, especially given the long straights and the many successive corners; clearly, the Federation does not fear an excessive occurrence of the much-hated super-clipping phenomenon.

The FIA has also set a Power Limited Distance of 2,847 metres and a maximum power-unit power reduction rate of 100kW per second. The MGU-K can deploy up to 350kW, but the available power progressively decreases at higher speeds, according to the curves defined by the Federation. In the race, the alternative Alt 1 curve applies between Turns 4 and 8, and between Turns 12 and 20, while the Base Standard and Base Overtake curves are used in the main overtaking zones. For Overtake Mode, as ever, the required gap is one second, measured 5,326 metres from the start of the lap, with activation permitted at 5,420 metres, shortly before the finish line.

Qualifying simulation and energy management

Michal Lubieniecki's simulations predict a qualifying lap of 1:34.582 at Austin, exactly 2.072 seconds slower than the 1:32.510 with which Verstappen took pole position in 2025. The new cars would be significantly faster on the straights, reaching 321km/h versus 312km/h on the main straight and as much as 346km/h versus 324km/h on the back straight, but they would lose up to 20km/h through the corners, particularly in the high-speed esses and the final sector.

Energy management is particularly interesting: in the original simulation, which assumed a maximum recovery of 8MJ per lap, 57% of the energy would come from braking, 25% from partial-throttle phases and the remaining 18% from lifting off the accelerator, with virtually no reliance on super-clipping. In energy terms, these figures equate to 4.56MJ, 2MJ and 1.44MJ respectively.

However, the FIA document subsequently published introduces an important difference: the official qualifying limit is 8.5MJ, half a megajoule more than the assumption used by Lubieniecki. In addition, the Federation has defined the specific deployment curves and the sectors in which particular power-reduction modes are permitted. The simulation therefore remains an interesting reference point, but the projected time and energy distribution will need to be recalculated in light of the official parameters. 

For this edition of the United States Grand Prix, Pirelli has selected the C2 as the Hard, the C3 as the Medium and the C4 as the Soft, reverting to a compound combination used in the past after the 2025 experiment. Last year, the C1 was nominated as the hardest tyre but was not used in the race, as teams favoured one-stop strategies using the softer C3 and C4 compounds.

Compared with 2025, the weekend also returns to the traditional format without a Sprint. Teams will therefore have three practice sessions to work on car balance and optimise their set-ups at a circuit that does not demand particularly extreme compromises.

The 5.513-kilometre Austin circuit features a mix of high-speed corners, rapid changes of direction and slower sections that demand strong traction. To be competitive, teams must combine good straight-line speed with efficient aerodynamic downforce through the more technical sections, an aspect made even more important by the current generation of Formula 1 cars.

From a tyre perspective, COTA places both axles under considerable strain. In the first sector, characterised by fast corners and changes of direction inspired by some of Europe’s great circuits, the front tyres will be put under particular stress. In the third sector, meanwhile, the many acceleration zones out of slow corners will tend to generate thermal degradation, especially on the rear tyres.

The asphalt surface is not particularly abrasive. A section of the circuit between Turns 9 and 11 was resurfaced at the start of this year. However, the effects of ageing on the rest of the track remain significant and contribute to high levels of wear. It is this latter factor, rather than graining, that is a concern and could therefore prove key over the weekend.

Track grip is generally good, helped by the support categories, including the Porsche Carrera Cup North America, which has been equipped by Pirelli since the start of this year. Track evolution, on the other hand, has traditionally not been among the most pronounced on the calendar.

From a strategic standpoint, the presence of the C2 as the hard compound could favour long stints, offering teams a valid option for what will probably be a one-stop race. However, the high temperatures that typically characterise a Texan weekend must also be taken into account, as they could increase degradation and open the door to alternative strategies.

Last year

The most common strategy at last year’s United States Grand Prix was Medium-Soft, adopted by 13 drivers. Among the podium finishers, Charles Leclerc was the exception, taking third place after choosing to start on Soft tyres to gain an initial grip advantage. Only three drivers towards the back of the grid started on the Hard tyres.

A special podium cap

A special cap created by designer Denis Dekovic for Pirelli Design will also feature on the United States Grand Prix podium. The cap features a pattern inspired by the stars of the American flag, enhanced by two symbols of the Texan desert landscape: cacti and rattlesnakes. The word “Austin” appears on the black peak and, as usual, it is already available to purchase through Pirelli’s e-commerce platform.

Photo f1pressarea.pirelli.com

As the current season draws to a close, definitively consigning to the archives, disappointingly, all hopes of a Formula 1 evenly split between electric and internal-combustion power, fresh indications are emerging of the pillars of the next regulatory cycle.

At the heart of the future Formula 1 will be a V8 internal-combustion engine, as already confirmed by the Federation’s technical and political leadership, while electrification will play a marginal role.

But what will future Formula 1 cars look like?
Which aspects will be affected by the proposals put forward so far?

As not even a draft of the next regulations has yet been written, imagining the shape of the cars for the next regulatory cycle is a cost-free exercise in imagination, but no less interesting for that.

At the centre of it all: the V8 internal-combustion engine

The new power unit will finally return to being called simply an engine, given the very marginal role electrification will play in the next regulatory cycle.
Removing the huge battery currently used would free up significant space behind the driver’s shoulders, while also greatly simplifying the overall installation.
The new V8 internal-combustion unit will certainly be bulkier than the current one, taking up some of the space presently allocated to the battery, but it will also be compact enough to reduce the overall volume that must be housed beneath the bodywork.

If we were to assume an eight-cylinder engine derived directly from current internal-combustion units, it would have a displacement of just over 2,000cc and, based on current regulatory dimensions, be around 250-300mm longer.

In reality, the Federation would like to introduce a 3,000cc unit: if that were the case, and if the V8s raced between 2006 and 2013 were taken as inspiration, slightly more space would probably be required, given that those engines had a bore exceeding 90mm, while the current bore is fixed at 80mm.
Much will depend on which parameters the Federation wants to retain, such as the now-infamous compression ratio; however, if turbocharging is indeed retained, the dimensions will be more compact than those of the V8s of the past for the same power output.

Reducing weight to race again, including through the corners

If the Federation really intends to remove the battery, it will gain a twofold advantage, as already mentioned: less space will be needed to house this component, benefiting the car’s compactness, and less weight.
To put it into perspective, the current minimum battery weight is around 35kg, certainly no negligible figure when considering that the FIA described the 30kg reduction for the current cars compared with 2025 as a major success.

Compactness and lightness will make future Formula 1 cars exceptionally agile through sequences of corners, whereas at present, weighed down and with a very long wheelbase required to accommodate the current power units, they are relatively sluggish in changes of direction.

Cooling will remain a significant factor

The increased displacement of the internal-combustion unit can only increase cooling requirements, even though the current requirements of the electrical components will be removed. It is difficult to strike a balance at present, but the radiators may increase in size and become heavier.

This could make it less favourable to position the cooling masses high up, above the power unit, as all manufacturers except Ferrari currently do.
Concentrating the cooling masses lower down, in the sidepods, will probably once again represent the most beneficial compromise not only in cooling terms but also dynamically, thanks to the lower centre of gravity.
This could result in slightly more generous sidepod shapes and larger inlet sections, while the air intake above the driver’s head, currently split into three sections, would most likely return to a single, fairly triangular form.

Aerodynamics: always important, but not necessarily active

The use of a traditional internal-combustion unit, with no need for energy management, would immediately remove the need for active aerodynamics.

It cannot be ruled out that the FIA may retain it, but it is highly likely there will be a move away from this complication, which has been one of the few positive features of the current regulations.

It is difficult to say what will happen at the front of the car, but it is possible to envisage that the rear could be influenced by the new regulations concerning the internal-combustion unit.

According to statements from FIA leadership, the internal-combustion unit will not be naturally aspirated but turbocharged, to produce an appealing sound while maintaining an intensity suitable for street races.

The increase in displacement will bring with it a larger turbocharger assembly, which is expected to remain a single unit, and there will inevitably be an increase in the cross-section of all ducting, including the exhaust.

This increase could lead to the exhaust being repositioned upstream of the rear-wing support, for example faired into the engine cover, perhaps with a bodywork-flush profile typical of the early 2000s.

Based on the current indications, a twin-turbo architecture is not ruled out either, which would lead to a twin-exhaust configuration centralised or, alternatively, spaced further towards the outside of the car, but always highly appealing.

The reduced wheelbase will necessarily result in less floor area available for development, which would translate into a substantial reduction in downforce: a direction always welcomed by the FIA’s regulatory bodies, both to keep performance within acceptable limits and to highlight the driving abilities of the best drivers.

Less weight and less reliance on downforce also mean greater scope and ability to use the kerbs.

By contrast, the ground-effect cars of the 2022-2025 four-year period, heavy and dependent on ground effect, suffered significantly over every bump, while the situation has improved slightly with the 2026 cars.

Less weight could return the suspension to its proper role, without the excesses and compromises seen in recent seasons, increasing adjustment possibilities and allowing tyre operating windows that are less difficult to hit.

A return to the past?

Do the 2031 regulations represent a return to the past?
Not necessarily.
Many key points have not been defined and, depending on them, the hypothetical car of the future would change radically in concept.
What matters is the desire to return the essence of a racing car to the centre of the top category: lightness and simplicity.

The excessive complexity of the current regulations has created the paradox of cars that are slow both on the straights and through the corners, and not at all “nimble”, as the current regulations promised.

The fact that 2031 is already being discussed while the first season of the current regulations is still under way suggests just how urgently the current top category needs to rediscover its lost direction.

The Spanish Grand Prix in Madrid brought an interesting tyre-related issue to the fore. The C4 Soft and C3 Medium showed rather pronounced degradation, while the harder compounds subsequently delivered consistent and competitive performance, proving to be the best race option. Starting from an analysis of that event, we discussed in greater detail the challenges surrounding the 2027 season and the wider outlook for the next championship.

Focus on the Madring: how Pirelli will work towards 2027

Daniele Muscarella (Formula1.it director): “In a previous interview with Dromo, we were told that at the Madring some of the differences found, compared with the circuit’s initial planned layout, were determined by the technology used to wash the asphalt. Are these practices agreed between you and the teams, or are there aspects that can take you by surprise when you arrive at the track? Did you find any differences compared with your expectations?"

Dario Marrafuschi (Pirelli motorsport director): “First of all, we do not have the know-how to define what type of asphalt should be used, nor how it can and should be washed, so we are not actively involved in these discussions. It is a highly technical matter. We are not actively involved, but we are informed because we have to assess and, if necessary, adapt our choices to the final result. We do not decide how it is done, but we need to be aware of the situation we will find. As far as the Madrid track is concerned, we found excellent grip from the asphalt, and performance was higher in terms of lap time. The compounds worked well, but the Monumental corner is very severe on the tyres and the layout, in general, led to high wear on the softer compounds”.

Daniele Muscarella (Formula1.it director): “Will you make the same choices next year as you did this year, or will there be surprises?”

Dario Marrafuschi (Pirelli motorsport director): “We chose the C2, C3 and C4 based on the information we received. You always learn something from a race. If we look at the Soft and Medium data, they did not suffer dramatic degradation at all. We were in line with what has been seen at other tracks where there are two or three pit stops. It was just difficult to overtake and, for that very reason, the strategy tended to favour the so-called train: whoever changed tyres last won. Then there was the likelihood of Safety Cars… There will be discussions to have for next year, in which we will play an active role. We will follow the requests that are made of us. They will certainly ask us to work towards slightly more degradation. We should remember that the 2026 compounds were designed without proper physical support that reflected the new cars, nor could we rely on circuit data. The track had yet to be built. Nobody knew what to expect, and we brought the C2, on which Gasly completed the entire Grand Prix, as well as compounds such as the C3 and C4 which, had overtaking been possible, would have allowed for two or even three pit stops. Degradation ranged from seven hundredths per lap to two tenths per lap. A range that would have meant two pit stops had we been at another track. We will make our assessments and decide what to do, whether to go with the C2, C3 and C4 again or make another choice".

Looking ahead to 2027, Pirelli is working towards more pit stops

Marco Sassara (Formula1.it journalist): “Since we are on the subject of 2027, what is the biggest challenge you believe you will have to face, also considering the evolution the cars will undergo?”

Dario Marrafuschi (Pirelli motorsport director): “The limits of development have been defined. A balance will have to be struck between power units, aerodynamic load and tyres. We have already assessed the limits to which all the subsystems can be pushed in order to maintain the car’s overall balance. We have worked to remain within these constraints and retain tyres that can be used by all teams, while also seeking to increase the level of degradation. This is with a view to generating more pit stops. Next year, the specifications selected move more in this direction. We want more degradation while giving drivers the opportunity to battle, rather than having only one lap available before the compound switches off. We want to operate within the system’s constraints while trying to amplify what is being asked of us”

Marco Sassara (Formula1.it journalist): “A yes-or-no question: will there be higher lateral loads in 2027?”

Dario Marrafuschi (Pirelli motorsport director): “Yes, development is heading in that direction”

Daniele Muscarella (Formula1.it director): “In previous years, we noticed greater pressure on Pirelli. Perhaps the new regulations have diverted some attention… I now hear you saying that you have begun receiving requests for 2027: more degradation, more pit stops… Do you think tyres will be talked about a little more next year?”

Dario Marrafuschi (Pirelli motorsport director): “The truth is that this pressure has always been there behind the scenes. We always have targets that we must try to meet. They may be less interesting to the wider public, but for us it is a constant, really”.

We thank Dario Marrafuschi (Pirelli motorsport director) for his courtesy and availability during the interview, as well as the Pirelli staff for their support in making it possible. Partial reproduction of this exclusive interview is permitted provided the author (Marco Sassara) and Formula1.it are credited, with a link to the original content.

Learning from Pirelli: Marrafuschi exclusive: «Teams need aerodynamic load»

Cover and interior photo (close-up of Antonelli, Mercedes): Pirelli

Interior photo (Dario Marrafuschi, Pirelli motorsport director) by Peter Kiss  / WHYOUT Images

For the Scuderia, though, losing Cadillac as a customer is only a matter of time, and the same could soon happen with the other American outfit, Haas.

The team led by principal Ayao Komatsu formed ties with Toyota Gazoo Racing during the current season, and it is very difficult to believe that the Japanese brand wanted to associate itself with the team merely as a sponsor.

A precedent not to be ignored

Ferrari could lose its remaining customers and return to supplying power units only to its own cars, as it did in the past. The Scuderia has not always been in this position, you know. And there is no reason to fear a scenario without customer supplies.

The last time the Prancing Horse had only two cars powered by its own unit was, perhaps unsurprisingly, during Maranello’s golden years: from 1993 to 2005, with world championships won from 1999 to 2004.

Perhaps having only Ferrari cars equipped with its own power unit could be an advantage rather than a drawback. Cadillac’s departure is certain, while Haas’s could be only a matter of time, but perhaps that is exactly what is needed to start winning again: a way to regain focus and concentrate on what truly matters to Ferrari itself.

Liam Lawson a victim of a turbulent past

We are, of course, talking about Liam Lawson. The New Zealander made his F1 debut in 2023 as Daniel Ricciardo’s replacement at the wheel of the AlphaTauri. He contested five races and scored two points at the Singapore Grand Prix. The following year, he was once again called upon to replace the Australian, starting from the Texas Grand Prix. He ended the season with four points.

In 2025, he was given the opportunity to race for Red Bull. However, the New Zealander completed only the Australian and Chinese Grands Prix. After just two races, management did not consider him up to the task and replaced him with Yuki Tsunoda. Showing one’s potential in only two races is certainly not the easiest thing in the world.

In 2026, he found himself at Racing Bulls, alongside Arvid Lindblad, regarded as Milton Keynes’ rising star. Arvid is hugely talented, finishing eighth on his debut and winning over the engineers in Faenza and at Red Bull. Lindblad is doing a tremendous job for a driver in his first season. Thirty-eight points with Racing Bulls are certainly no small feat, but what then should be said of the 61 Lawson has scored at the wheel of the VCARB-03?

The New Zealander is delivering an impeccable season: 61 points with VCARB and 14 in the three races he has contested for Red Bull as a replacement for the injured Hadjar (Netherlands, Italy, Madrid). Changing cars mid-season is never easy, yet Lawson failed to score points only at Monza, largely because a power unit change forced him to start from the back of the grid.

Liam Lawson’s drama, one shared by many

Moreover, even without taking into account his results with Red Bull, Liam has recorded a fifth place in Monaco and a sixth at Silverstone with VCARB. It is a sign of the driver’s considerable progress. For him, 2026 appears to be something of a season of redemption, but it is a shame that an aura of silence surrounds his name in Milton Keynes. There is talk of how well Lindblad is doing, of Hadjar’s strong results in his first season at Red Bull, but Lawson is barely discussed.

Unfortunately, in Milton Keynes, performances appear to matter only depending on the driver involved, and Lawson, unless there is a rethink or a change of direction, could face a drama that other drivers have experienced before him.

Photo: Red Bull Racing

Now, to remain connected to the paddock, the Chinese driver is Cadillac’s reserve driver, having joined the team in 2026 after accepting the challenge of helping General Motors fight in the midfield in F1. Guanyu spoke to this writer in an exclusive interview about Cadillac’s development, the next challenges in his career and the lessons he learned at Maranello.

Zhou, you are the reserve driver for a new team such as Cadillac: how is the eleventh team on the grid progressing in its debut season?

"The key aspect of the project has been bringing together people who have worked for different teams in the past, drawing on the experience they can bring to a team starting from scratch. Everything here is new; we have not simply changed the name or transformed a previous team. That is why it is important to understand what needs to be done and define the strategy for the team’s future in every respect, from the facilities to the operational areas, so we can understand how and where to improve".

Are you happy with your role, which is important in helping a debuting team grow from the back of the grid?

"I am happy to be part of the Cadillac project as third driver. I really enjoy being able to give my feedback on this new generation of cars and the new regulations. I feel comfortable here and work with many people I had already worked with in the past: familiar faces in a new environment. It has been a good journey for me so far, but the team still has a long way to go".

Do you think it is more difficult to be a reserve driver at a new team or at an established one?

"Honestly, I do not see major differences. Here, there is more work to do in passing information on to the team. It is different from joining an already established team. In those cases, you follow a set path: you provide the necessary information, but you fit into an existing working methodology, adapt and have to work on yourself. Here it is different. From the first day, they have asked me a lot of questions. After testing and the various simulator sessions, we have long meetings to understand the critical issues and how to solve them each time".

Do you ever give feedback that aligns with that of the race drivers, Bottas and Perez?

"Yes, many times. When the team receives similar feedback from all three drivers regarding the car’s problems, it is clear that this is the area to address and improve. So I believe there is certainly more scope at Cadillac for me to make my contribution, which is positive because I keep working and developing. When you join a new team, you learn a lot as a driver; there are always areas where you can improve, also through discussions with the engineers and especially with the race drivers".

You said there are areas in which you are encountering difficulties. Are there, on the other hand, areas where you think the team is in good shape?

"I think the management of the weekend programme, the drivers’ schedules and the way meetings with the engineers are handled are areas that are managed very well. Of course, that is only one part of the work at the track, but I really appreciate the way activities are prepared and how internal communication takes place, both over the radio and through other channels".

But to perform well, you need a competitive car...

"Of course, we have to improve the car’s performance to make it more competitive and allow it to fight, perhaps in the midfield. We are not at that level yet, so there is plenty of room for growth in this area, but we have to deal with the budget cap: as a new team, you invest heavily in different areas and cannot focus on just one aspect. We are going through a process that takes time, but that is normal. You do not create a new team and start winning straight away".

Looking at your career, what do you see in the near future?

"I believe there is still a chance to return to the F1 grid. I will have to assess how things develop, but I think the opportunity exists for next year. I am doing my best to fight for it because I feel I still have something to offer. I want to show my value, to the public and to those in the sport. On the other hand, I love racing and want to race again: F1 remains my priority, but I will certainly consider other categories too".

Would any option be viable?

"Wait a moment, I mean other categories, and I am open to many options, but I like living in Europe and do not want to move to America. I have already experienced the transition from Chinese culture to European culture; I do not want to change again. I want to stay in the same environment. A lot will depend on the offers or on which environment I feel is ‘home’. But it is not something I am thinking about now; I will evaluate it, also because over the past two years I have received several approaches from teams in various categories. I really appreciate that interest. I am doing everything possible to return to the grid. If I cannot do that, I am open to continuing my career in another championship".

Last year, you were Scuderia Ferrari’s reserve driver: what did you learn from that experience at a top team?

"It was an extraordinary experience, not only because of the team’s stature, but also because I was previously part of the Ferrari Driver Academy. I know the people at Maranello well, and I really appreciated the respect they show when you do your job well, the way they value your contribution and the trust they give you. It was an honour to be selected to take part in Pirelli tests or in several race weekends as first reserve. Driving for Ferrari is every driver’s childhood dream: you grow up watching F1, become a Ferrari fan and want to be part of it".

What did you learn from the Scuderia?

"Observing their way of working represented a huge step forward compared with my previous F1 experience. If I had had that kind of experience earlier and known this approach, I would probably have experienced my years in F1 differently, especially in terms of communication with the team and weekend preparation. They have efficient methods that do not require an excessive amount of time, allowing you to focus solely on your work. That is why I am happy to be at Cadillac and bring this experience with me: I believe these are valuable elements for helping the team grow and offering useful advice to improve processes".

At Ferrari, you had the opportunity to work with Lewis Hamilton, the most successful driver in F1 history: what did you learn from him, both as a driver and in terms of mentality?

"Honestly, I think Lewis is very different when he is at the factory or in a technical meeting from how he is in public. He is very reserved and protective of his privacy. He wants to stay away from the chaos and remain focused on himself when he is in public. I understand that. But when he is at the factory or talking with the team, he is extremely direct. In that respect, he is very similar to Charles Leclerc. Perhaps they have different ways of asking questions, but their underlying approach is similar: they get straight to the point, they want to solve problems and, if the cause of those problems is their own mistake, they admit it without making excuses".

So Leclerc taught you a great deal too...

"Absolutely. I learned a lot from both of them, particularly about how to communicate with the engineers. They have different preparation methods, but they are both among the best drivers around and share the same determination to get the most out of themselves and the team. And I think that is crucial in this sport".

Thanks to Zhou Guanyu and Cadillac F1 Team for their availability. Partial reproduction of this exclusive interview is permitted provided the author (Alessio Ciancola) and Formula1.it are credited, with a link to the original content.

Cover photo x.com

Audi is, on average, quicker than Haas, although it remains behind Racing Bulls. The advantage is still slim, however, and the American team still has technical upgrades planned; just one tenth could be enough to reverse the order.

Hülkenberg makes the difference

One of the project’s main strengths is Nico Hülkenberg, who has often delivered performances beyond expectations. In Malaysia, the German stood out with a fine recovery drive, including a spectacular double overtake, while in Singapore he took seventh in the Sprint after keeping George Russell behind him for several laps. The driver’s experience is also valuable in the car’s development.

Gabriel Bortoleto’s season has been considerably less fortunate, with the Brazilian forced to retire on several occasions because of technical issues, particularly with the gearbox. As well as compromising potentially important results, those failures have cost valuable mileage and data for a team still building its technical project.

Seventh place remains possible

With 23 points to Haas’s 30, Audi can still make up ground in the final races. The substantial aerodynamic package introduced in Baku, featuring changes to the front wing, nose, sidepods and floor, confirmed the team’s intention to continue developing the car until the end of the season.

One significant fact remains: Racing Bulls, Alpine and Haas have already secured fifth- and sixth-place finishes, while Audi has yet to achieve an equivalent result.

Seventh place is within reach, but securing it will above all require weekends free of technical setbacks, allowing the team to finally exploit the car’s potential with both drivers.

FOLLOW THE GTWC PORTIMAO 3 HOURS LIVE: NEWS AND UPDATES FROM THE TRACK

19:35 - As the second and final round of driver changes approaches, the positions at the front remain unchanged, with the exception of Loake, who is going very well and has passed Stolz to move up to fourth. Lulham is sixth. 

19:05 - Barnicoat comes into the pits, with Lulham taking over from the Briton. Max Verstappen will get in during the final hour. The No. 3 car rejoins in seventh position. The top ten currently reads: Aron [Mercedes, No. 17], Boccolacci [Porsche No. 2], Feller [Porsche No. 80], Stolz [Mercedes No. 48] Loake [McLaren No. 59], Lulham [Mercedes No. 3], Drouet [Ford No. 64], Ebdrup [Ferrari, No. 71], Gunn [Aston Martin, No. 7], Cordeel [BMW No. 30]

19:02 - Picariello relinquishes the lead and comes into the pits. The BMW No. 46 also pits, bringing Valentino Rossi's GTWC stint to an end. 

19:01 - The pit stops begin!

19:00 - There are officially two hours remaining and the pit-lane shuffle for driver changes is about to begin. The top five currently consists of Picariello [Porsche No. 2] Preining [ Porsche No. 80], Gotz [ Mercedes No. 17], Maini [ Ford No. 64], Engel [ Mercedes No. 48]. Barnicoat's No. 3 Mercedes is eighth.

18:37 - Picariello continues to lead the field, followed by Preining and Gotz. We still do not know when the first driver changes will take place, or whether Max Verstappen will drive during this second phase of the race.

18:25 - Spin for the AF Corse No. 50 Ferrari: it is all to do again after dropping to 30th position. 

18:23 - After the problems at the start, Valentino Rossi appears to have resolved the issues with his No. 46 BMW, already climbing back to 58th position.  

18:20 - Green flag!

18:18 - A track slowdown has been called by the stewards: the cars may not exceed 80km/h. This procedure is called a Full Course Yellow (FCY)

18:16 - Yellow flag at Turn 4 following a spin for the No. 45 Ferrari driven by Medler.

18:07 - Picariello leads the field, less than a second ahead of Preining. The leading Ferrari, the No. 50, is fourth. The No. 71 driven by Birch is sixth. Barnicoat's No. 3 Mercedes is 11th.

18:04 - PROBLEMS FOR VALENTINO ROSSI'S NO. 46 CAR, which heads to the pits before returning to the track shortly afterwards. We do not yet know what happened, but his race has started with no shortage of difficulties. 

18:02 - Ben Barnicoat is already 12th; Valentino Rossi remains 60th. 

The Portimao 3 Hours is officially under way! A clean start, with no contact between the cars. The two Porsches retain the lead!

17:55 - The formation lap begins!

17:41 - Here are the drivers taking the start of the Portimao 3 Hours 

17:38 - Looking at the weather, the air temperature is around 25 degrees, with clear skies.

17:20 - There is not long to go before the race begins: Max Verstappen will only take the wheel of his Mercedes-AMG GT3 later on. Ben Barnicoat will start in the No. 3 car. The Briton will be joined at the start by Valentino Rossi [BWM] and Nicola La Corte [AF CORSE]

Founded in 2009, Ferrari’s academy programme has produced just eight Formula 1 drivers. That total also includes Rafael Camara, the current leader of the F2 championship standings, who is set to join Haas in 2027.

Bianchi, the first talent from Ferrari’s academy

Jules Bianchi was the first of its talents to reach F1, driving for Marussia. The Frenchman was also the first driver to sign a contract with the FDA. Sadly, his 2014 accident in Japan extinguished every hope surrounding him. He would certainly have been a great driver. Perhaps the most talented alongside Charles Leclerc.

Zero titles: a ruthless comparison with Red Bull’s programme

Alongside Jules Bianchi and Leclerc, the FDA has also helped six other drivers take their first steps in motorsport’s top category: Sergio Perez—whose best result was second in the 2023 world championship as Verstappen’s Red Bull team-mate—Lance Stroll, Mick Schumacher, Zhou Guanyu, Oliver Bearman—one of the FDA’s most promising current drivers alongside Leclerc—and newly promoted Rafael Camara.

Eight drivers in 17 years and no world titles. However much Red Bull’s academy may be criticised, its programme has so far produced eight world titles between Vettel and Verstappen. Light-years ahead of any other academy, Mercedes included. Charles Leclerc remains the most talented driver ever to emerge from the programme and the one in whom Ferrari places its greatest hopes. All of this, of course, without knowing what Jules might have achieved.

Photo: Ferrari

During the 2026 Grands Prix, we noticed that not all teams are able to manage and use the compounds in the same way. Some teams are more comfortable on harder compounds, others on softer ones, and we essentially wanted to understand why. Dario Marrafuschi and Pirelli were not only willing to accommodate our request, but also answered our questions in great detail.

There are differences, indeed

Marco Sassara (Formula1.it journalist): “You often tell us that teams adopt different strategies depending on the characteristics of their cars. Do you have evidence that certain types of compound suit some teams better than others? If so, which ones? And above all, can these differences be explained?”

Dario Marrafuschi (Pirelli motorsport director): “We have found evidence of that, yes. There are compounds that work better for certain teams at some races. Objectively, it is potentially a very complicated subject, but we will try to simplify it. Let us start with the simplest aspect: the driver’s driving style. There are drivers who prefer a more oversteery car, so when they are driving at a rear-limited circuit, they are better able to manage the rear compounds and find themselves with a competitive advantage over their rivals. That is certainly a subjective factor. What happens from an engineering point of view? Every car has its own characteristics and the set-up that suits it best. One characteristic we can use as an example is the aerodynamic load it can generate. The higher the aerodynamic load, the better the lap time, the greater the forces involved and the higher the operating temperatures of the compounds. Each car, in terms of its aerodynamic set-up, may be able to get certain types of compound into their operating window more easily than others. To simplify, even if some teams may not agree with this statement, you might observe that the second half of the grid is more comfortable on the soft compounds, while the teams at the front are able to perform better on the harder specifications. This is an example, even if it is not entirely absolute. What we have said can become more complicated at certain types of track, but it depends on how much the layout itself limits power or grip; it may be that greater aerodynamic load allows a team to manage the soft compound better. If the car remains firmly planted to the ground and does not tend to slide, then the soft becomes a good compound to use. We are no longer talking about the working range, but have moved more towards wear and abrasion. So, let us say there are two main effects a team has to manage: on one hand the thermal effect, to be triggered through aerodynamics, and on the other abrasion and wear, also to be looked after through aerodynamic load. In some cases, having this sort of helping hand from the sky, represented by aerodynamics pressing the car into the ground, can help with using the softer compounds. Our tyre range offers different working ranges. And it is not true that the softer you go, the lower the working ranges become. That was the case some years ago, but now, precisely in order to promote different strategies and have tyres that can be used by all teams, we have a situation that is not entirely linear. The C5 has a slightly higher working range. To be competitive and manage the tyres well, you need to be able to generate the right temperature by relying on the car’s aerodynamics.”

Why teams are constantly pursuing aerodynamic load

Daniele Muscarella (Formula1.it director): “This is an interesting topic, because it introduces a counterintuitive concept, doesn’t it?”

Dario Marrafuschi (Pirelli motorsport director): “Exactly. In the past, interaction with the teams led us to design tyres of this type in order to better withstand high temperatures. Moving the working range too low would send the tyre out of range: it would suffer too much abrasion and leave its working window too quickly. It would become unusable; it would essentially be a qualifying tyre. This is what allows us to see extensive use of the softer compounds during race phases. Graining is a phenomenon closely linked to the force the tread has to exert on the asphalt to keep the car on track. In particular, the lateral bands of the tyre are especially stressed during cornering. There are also cases of longitudinal graining, but that is rarer. Here too, the higher the fuel load, the greater the mass, and the greater the risk of graining. But if you have, returning to the metaphor, this hand from above that tends to press you into the ground, graining is reduced. Generally, you slide when there is little grip: the compound cannot penetrate the asphalt. This can happen when the asphalt is dirty, when there is dust…”

Marco Sassara (Formula1.it journalist): “The temperatures are low…”

Dario Marrafuschi (Pirelli motorsport director): “Yes, they are all consequences of the same effect. Take the case of dust: when we have an unstable layer between the asphalt and the tyre, the tyre slides over it. By sliding over it, the graining phenomenon is triggered. Cold has a similar effect: a cold track lowers tyre temperatures, the rubber becomes harder, like chewing gum, it does not penetrate the asphalt properly, it slides and grains. How do you combat it? By increasing aerodynamic load and reducing the weight of the car.”

Marco Sassara (Formula1.it journalist): “So, in light of what you have just told us, with the increase that will come with development towards 2027 and with cars that have greater aerodynamic load, should there be smaller differences between teams in terms of tyre use and management?”

Dario Marrafuschi (Pirelli motorsport director): “If everyone had the same aerodynamic load, that would be the case, but we know that in reality, even setting aside drivers’ driving styles, that is not so… Even though the regulations define maximum limits, development then leads teams down different paths and aerodynamic load can also vary considerably from one team to another. That is precisely what leads teams to favour one tyre over another.”

We would like to thank Dario Marrafuschi (Pirelli motorsport director) for his courtesy and availability during the interview, as well as the Pirelli staff for their support in making it possible. Partial reproduction of this exclusive interview is permitted provided the author (Marco Sassara) and Formula1.it are credited, with a link to the original content.

Cover photo by Peter Kiss / WHYOUT Images

Internal photos: Pirelli

Tesla: "The Roadster is a car for real drivers"

As conceived, the new Tesla Roadster is certainly not a runabout to give your child when they turn 18, but we fear it is not even a car that an experienced driver should get into lightly. Yet, in defiance of the sceptics, production is scheduled for 2028, with buyers also able to choose from several versions. Preferably if they are highly experienced.

The Roadster is, in fact, a car for real drivers, Tesla says: "active aerodynamics, multimodal suction system and cold-gas thrusters. Exterior: pop-up headlights, full-width rear light and flush surfaces for a minimalist, highly technical form. Super-light wheels with thin spokes that reinforce structural strength when on the ground. Ano White paint offers an aerospace-derived finish with UV and cryogenic protection, electrostatic dissipation and corrosion resistance. Gold Glazed tinted glass mimics the copper coating on space-suit visors, with subtle titanium accents", Tesla wrote in a post on X, Twitter. Given that claim, it would not be a bad idea for the American manufacturer to create a dedicated category solely to establish the precise potential of these cars and this technology. We are throwing out an idea that could even shake up Formula E and Formula 1 if it were taken up.

The Tesla Roadster does not fly, but it can land

In our view, however, Elon Musk’s real intention was not simply to unveil a car, but a technology. Make no mistake: the fact that the Tesla Roadster can stick to the ceiling is not entirely new. The McMurtry Spéirling (very similar to the Batmobile) was unveiled to the world in 2021 and was the first car to achieve this through forced ventilation. The Tesla Roadster uses the same concept, as well as gas thrusters to accelerate from 0 to 100 km/h in under a second and reach 370 km/h. All things we have seen before. Or at least, things that already exist and have been developed further.

What is new are the stabilisers, the rocket thrusters, already used by SpaceX (the American aerospace company also owned by Elon Musk) to recover launch vehicles. The Tesla Roadster does not fly in the true sense of the word. However, it can jump and land perfectly at a predetermined point.

In our view, similar technology is not intended exclusively for the production car itself. The Tesla Roadster is merely a vehicle for presenting these innovations to the public. What could its applications be? Infinite: the limit is essentially imagination. Such technology could be used for military purposes, allowing even heavy vehicles to overcome obstacles. Another application could be in aerospace, with rovers able to inspect even the most confined terrain without the risk of being damaged or becoming trapped.

What is certain is that the new Tesla Roadster has opened up a new frontier for the automobile. For now, it is a prototype, but if it genuinely goes on sale in 2028, it will mark an epochal turning point in the automotive world. And perhaps… it already has.

Photo: X, Tesla

When two drivers within the same garage are both given equal number-one status, managing the dynamics from race to race, seeking a perfect balance in how each is treated, and deciding who should benefit and who should make sacrifices inevitably become complex and always risk leaving someone unhappy.

But dissatisfaction is the lesser evil: the events in Singapore cost Ferrari a podium that was within reach, as well as many championship points.

In many other races, both this year and in the recent past, the coexistence of two number-one drivers at Maranello has left plenty of points on the table and created some controversy, even though Ferrari have not been in title contention for some time and the conflict has never reached boiling point.

A line-up with two number ones has never worked

This season’s Mercedes, meanwhile, effectively have two number-one drivers but have avoided driver-management problems only through good fortune—or rather, through the misfortune that has forced Russell into so many retirements, taking him out of the title fight.

In 2016, when Hamilton and Rosberg fought for the world championship on equal terms, even the outstanding leader Toto Wolff made management errors that affected the drivers’ coexistence and the team’s results.

Last season, McLaren seriously risked losing the drivers’ championship by, questionably, choosing not to designate a number-one driver and instead applying their ‘papaya rules’, which came close to becoming a double-edged sword.

McLaren also effectively lost the drivers’ title in 2007 because of their poor handling of the Alonso-Hamilton pairing: the former, by then an undisputed champion, and the latter, a formidable rookie, proved able to match his team-mate.

With the two drivers fighting each other, the title went to Raikkonen, who took advantage of the inefficiencies within the team then run by Ron Dennis.

History shows that a number one is needed

The history of the sport is full of such examples: in 1988 and 1989, the internal war between Prost and Senna, again at McLaren, was among the most destructive for team harmony, although it did not cost them the championship because of the overwhelming superiority of the car built at Woking.

Therefore, if there is one thing Formula 1 has taught us, it is that when the aim is to win rather than simply take part, there is only one very simple formula: a clear, undisputed number one, appointed immediately, supported by an excellent lieutenant.

Two number-one drivers is a utopia—an illusion that, more often than not, proves expensive.

Moving from a world championship-winning Mercedes to a Cadillac that struggles even to reach the chequered flag might appear to be the least rewarding way to spend the final years of a career, the perfect material for memes and mockery. Yet for Valtteri Bottas, the challenge with the new American team represents more than simply an opportunity to remain in Formula 1.

Speaking to the Financial Times, the Finn discussed the difficulties encountered during Cadillac’s first season, explaining how the work now required of a driver by the American team differs profoundly from what he did during his years at Mercedes.

But behind the team’s still decidedly modest results lies an interesting situation, on which Formula1.it has recently gathered information directly from within the Cadillac camp. It primarily concerns the comparison between Bottas and Sergio Pérez, two drivers with experience at leading teams who have now been tasked with helping a project still in its infancy to grow.

From Mercedes to Cadillac: two different ways of working

“I knew it was going to be a difficult year. There was going to be a lot of work to do to solve problems, make progress and get every area of the team working”, Bottas explained.

The Finn has claimed 10 wins and 67 podiums during his career, spending five seasons alongside Lewis Hamilton at Mercedes. It was an experience in which the engineers’ work was largely focused on finding marginal gains from an already highly competitive car.

At Cadillac, however, the priorities are entirely different. The team must develop the car, its infrastructure and its operational processes simultaneously, while also preparing its future engine programme, scheduled for 2030.

“It’s not just about thinking about this weekend, but also what could help us in the short and long term. You have to look at the bigger picture when it comes to car development.”

It is a perspective Bottas appears to have fully embraced, also showing particular enthusiasm for Cadillac’s new Silverstone facilities, which he described as the most impressive he has encountered in his Formula 1 career. When the Financial Times asked whether the new American facilities were even better than those of the Brackley team, the Finn replied without hesitation: “I would say so.”

It is not just about investment and technology. Cadillac is also building an important organisational structure, with a particularly well-regarded working environment capable of attracting qualified professionals from elsewhere in Formula 1. Its geographical location is certainly an advantage: the British base sits at the heart of the so-called Motorsport Valley, a few kilometres from Aston Martin in Silverstone and a short distance from Mercedes in Brackley; McLaren in Woking is also part of the same major British motorsport cluster.

This concentration of expertise makes it easier to recruit engineers, technicians and specialists already accustomed to working at the highest level of motorsport. For a team newly arrived in Formula 1, being able to rely from the outset on state-of-the-art facilities and highly experienced personnel is an important advantage, even if turning those resources into performance will inevitably take time.

Returning to a present that is less rosy than the outlook, aside from performances that have fallen short but are in line with expectations for a debut season, the main problem is undoubtedly reliability. In the first 16 races of the season, Bottas has recorded eight retirements, a particularly damaging figure for a team that needs to accumulate mileage and information.

“When you encounter problems, whether in practice or qualifying, that is precisely when you are unable to improve. You end up trying to solve them instead of focusing on performance and on how to make the car faster.”

The comparison with Pérez and the unknown background

One particularly interesting element has emerged regarding the development work, which we can bring you exclusively. According to information obtained by Formula1.it, Bottas is held in very high regard within the team, despite what the on-track results might suggest.

The Finn is described as a driver who is extremely precise in the feedback he provides to engineers, punctual and consistent in his simulator commitments, as well as particularly available and respectful in his dealings with staff.

These are qualities that take on particular importance in a team building its own working methodology from scratch.

The assessment gathered on Sergio Pérez, meanwhile, is said to be markedly different. While the Mexican is recognised as having greater outright pace, there is reportedly not the same level of appreciation within the team for his technical contribution, owing to less precise feedback and less consistent involvement in simulator work than his team-mate, with several sessions that the Mexican is said not to have completed.

There is another factor, perhaps even more important in understanding the performance gap between the two drivers.

According to information gathered by our editorial team, Pérez has a more developed car than Bottas. After the summer break, the Mexican is said to have benefited from a substantially more comprehensive upgrade package, while the Finn continued to use a less recent specification.

This difference would help explain the huge time gap seen between the two Cadillacs at recent events, which was not evident in the first part of the season.

However, this would not be a choice linked to a desire to favour Pérez. The differentiated distribution of upgrades would primarily meet two needs: containing development costs in compliance with budget cap restrictions, and gathering comparative data between different configurations across different circuits and conditions.

Based on the indications received, the United States Grand Prix in Austin could mark the point of technical realignment: Bottas should also receive the upgrades already used by his team-mate, allowing for a more even comparison between the two cars.

Two veterans, one project to build

For his part, Bottas does not appear intent on fuelling internal rivalries. Speaking about his relationship with Pérez, the Finn stressed that both have gained enough experience to understand what the priorities must be for a team still in the building phase.

“We have been in big teams and we have also gone through more difficult moments in this sport. We have both seen what works and what doesn’t. We know that, at this point, we have to put the team ahead of ourselves.”

For Cadillac, the decision to rely on two experienced drivers was not simply about having a dependable pairing on track, but above all about accelerating the team’s technical and organisational growth.

Bottas’s contribution, at least according to what we have been told, appears to be particularly appreciated in precisely this respect. It is a commitment the Finn also confirms in his own comments, explaining that he finds satisfaction in work far removed from what he did during his winning days at Mercedes.

“I like solving problems. Of course, I would like to race in the pack and fight for points, but I knew this year was going to be difficult.”

Cover photo by Luca Martini / WHYOUT Images

Charles took his first steps in red alongside four-time world champion Sebastian Vettel. He had to show his character and demonstrate his qualities straight away, earning himself the nickname of “the chosen one”.

Maranello’s little prince

However, that is not the nickname we have chosen to use today. Of all those bestowed upon him, there is another that suits our purpose better: the “little prince”. It obviously stems from his birthplace, the Principality of Monaco, but also from his consistently courteous and kind manner, both then and now, in front of the cameras.

Eight seasons on from his Ferrari debut, when we look at Leclerc, we no longer see the well-mannered little prince eager to prove his potential. Looking at Charles now, we see a self-aware man. Always kind, aggressive when necessary, yet fair in wheel-to-wheel battles. A man who is highly self-critical and honest with himself. A man who got married in February and is expecting his first child with his wife, Alexandra Saint Mleux, due shortly, in the autumn.

The little prince has become a man, while still waiting to win his first title with Ferrari. An opportunity that has never truly presented itself so far, apart from in 2024, when there was a chance to fight not for the drivers’ title but for the constructors’ crown. It was a trophy they only narrowly missed out on, with McLaren crowned champions at the end of the final race in Abu Dhabi. At Maranello, Charles has experienced significant seasons that have helped him grow both personally and professionally. Indeed, to date, he has never driven a car capable of being considered the benchmark of the grid.

Happy birthday, Charles Leclerc

Charles Leclerc turns 29 today, and one chapter of his life will inevitably come to an end while another is soon to begin. He has entered his final year in his twenties and will shortly have to take on other major responsibilities. The little prince has become a man, and we can only offer him our warmest birthday wishes, along with an even greater wish for what lies ahead. Happy birthday, Charles.

The arrival of active aerodynamics represented a major new development which, in some way, was always expected to go far beyond the DRS concept. However, nobody was prepared to see such an extreme and imaginative interpretation of the regulations, defined not only by a reduction in the profile’s angle of incidence but by its complete reversal.

From the first images, its main purpose appeared clear: to reduce aerodynamic drag as much as possible, cancelling out the profile’s angle of incidence and amplifying the drag-reduction effect through the gap created between the two opposing profiles.

Given the strong interaction between aerodynamic elements, it is not entirely inappropriate to imagine that the solution may somehow go beyond the wing’s purely aerodynamic operation, working in synergy with the car’s highly distinctive rear end, equipped with the FTM system that makes aerodynamic use of the exhaust gases.

A brilliant solution

To understand the ingenuity of the solution developed by Ferrari’s Maranello technicians for the SF-26, we must first look at what the technical regulations require.

The FIA text leaves considerable freedom, setting the transition time between “corner” mode and “straight” mode at 400ms (C3.11.6), while requiring the control volumes to be respected once the flap has closed again.

No restrictions have been imposed on the opening angle or other geometric constraints, other than that it must comply with the regulatory control volumes once it returns to the “closed” position.

The regulations do clearly state, however, that the rear movable wing must be operated by a single actuator (C3.11.6).

In addition, up to three Rear Wing Rotation Brackets (C3.11.7) are permitted, these being mechanical elements that support the rotation, while the flap position must be checked by a sensor mechanically linked to the movable flap and calibrated to the actuator’s movement.

With a hydraulic actuator needed to operate the movable flap, the most intuitive and mechanically simple solution is to place it centrally, directly in front of the rear wing, enclosing the system beneath an aerodynamically favourable cover.

This is the solution we have come to know through DRS, but it has the downside of interfering with the rear wing and creating a degree of aerodynamic drag that, under the current regulations, is more undesirable than ever.

The brilliant idea devised by Ferrari’s Maranello technicians was to eliminate this encumbrance entirely by placing the actuator in one of the rear wing’s two endplates. This is the true masterpiece that distinguishes Ferrari’s “macarena” from the systems subsequently adopted by the other teams.

How it works in detail

Thanks to photographs circulating online, it has been possible to attempt to understand how Ferrari’s system works, first by locating the hydraulic actuator in the left-hand endplate, concealed beneath a fairly large carbon cover (Photo Mateusz Mróz).

The hydraulic actuator is housed with its rear end facing the front of the car, while its rod must necessarily point towards the rear and upwards.

Near the end of the rod is the centre of rotation around which the movable flap turns and, clearly, there will be a corresponding element in the right-hand endplate.

The latter features a smaller, slender removable panel (Photo Vegetti), covering an elongated compartment which does not, of course, contain the actuator, but where wiring can be seen.

This space must be dedicated to the position sensor that monitors the flap’s rotation.

Once this is understood, the question becomes: what is the mechanism that rotates the flap?
Given the space taken up by the linkages used by Red Bull and McLaren, what is the actuator connected to in such a confined space?

The most plausible hypothesis, as well as the most intriguing, is also the mechanically simplest, most direct and most compact.

The left-hand pivot of the “macarena” wing and the actuator rod form a rack-and-pinion system.

The reversible wing is fixed to a type of toothed gear which meshes with the linear teeth machined into the actuator rod.

If that is the case, the actuator’s resting position, corresponding to the wing being closed in “Corner Mode”, would have the rod extended towards the rear of the car. Once authorised, the rod would retract sufficiently to transmit rotational movement to the movable wing. The mechanical stop could be provided by the hydraulic piston itself reaching the end of its stroke, or incorporated elsewhere.

Using the same system, at the centre of rotation located in the right-hand endplate, Ferrari’s Maranello technicians may have fixed a suitably shaped disc to the profile, allowing it to be read by an inductive proximity sensor capable of detecting the presence of metal at close range.

A system constructed in this way would have the advantage of being extremely simple, direct, reliable, compact and lightweight.
Its drawback could lie in the greater force required from the actuator, an issue that could probably be addressed by increasing its operating pressure.

It should be remembered that, in relatively simple hydraulic circuits, a pressure of 150 bar is fairly common and, for a cylinder with a bore of just 15mm, can produce a force of more than 2500N (270kgf).

Among the various versions of rotating wing, the “macarena” earns its status as the standout innovation not merely because it was the first to hit the track, but also because of its complete integration into the wing structure and the sophistication of its construction. For once, the term “masterpiece” is not being used lightly.

New aerodynamics and a new power unit have forced drivers to adapt their driving styles to the cars, meaning those who interpreted the regulations best at the start of the year were able to build a significant advantage. Championship leader Andrea Kimi Antonelli is proof of that, although he has continued to demonstrate his qualities, as has Lewis Hamilton.

Steady progress, as experienced drivers gradually emerge

The seven-time world champion showed great adaptability, almost unexpectedly so. Not because of his unquestionable ability, but because of his age. At the start of the year, it was thought that younger drivers would hold an advantage over the category's 'giants' — the veterans and multiple world champions. Hamilton (41) was certainly an exception in the opening months of the year, reaching the podium as early as the second race and showing great consistency. Verstappen, by contrast, made a subdued start, although his issues were certainly more closely linked to his car package.

The other giants, Hulkenberg (39) and Alonso (45), began much more slowly, both for reasons of adaptation and because of the limited potential of their respective cars, the Audi and Aston Martin. Fernando nevertheless managed to stay ahead of Stroll throughout, while Nico struggled considerably against team-mate Bortoleto at the start of the year.

Over the past few races, from around the Dutch Grand Prix, something has changed. The giants are slowly awakening. With the updates, the Spaniard has returned to regularly fighting for points, producing a fine performance at Sepang, among other occasions, while Hulkenberg has moved ahead of Gabriel in the overall standings after a run of six positive races in which he finished ahead of the Brazilian.

Hamilton slows, but there is still plenty to learn

At the same time, Verstappen appears to have become fully at one with his Red Bull — thanks in part to the team's excellent work — while Lewis Hamilton's progress appears to have stalled. Indeed, Charles Leclerc is also steadily improving and has beaten his team-mate three times in the last four races (the strategic error in Singapore can, for now, also be regarded as an isolated incident).

We are therefore seeing a reversal of the trend, although it may not prove definitive. The regulations are so complex that there could still be significant room for improvement. As a result, even next year could yet be a season marked by further fluctuations in Formula 1 drivers' performances.

Cover and in-story photo by Peter Kiss / WHYOUT Images

The Aramco complex that was hit lies around 160 kilometres as the crow flies from the Lusail circuit, a geographical proximity that makes the situation especially sensitive. The precedent from 2022 remains fresh in everyone's mind: during the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix weekend, a Houthi missile attack struck an oil depot a few kilometres from the Jeddah circuit. Despite drivers' concerns, Formula 1 chose to race on.

This time, however, the issue is not solely one of safety. There is also an ethical question that Formula 1 and the FIA can no longer ignore. A Grand Prix is not merely a race: it is an event that generates considerable economic activity, mobilises public and private investment, attracts tourism, delivers international visibility and helps promote the image of the host country.

It is therefore legitimate to ask what message a sport sends by continuing to stage major events in the region while an armed conflict is under way, with civilian casualties and infrastructure targeted by missile attacks. Above all, it must be asked whether it is acceptable for the championship's commercial interests to continue taking precedence over every other consideration.

It is, of course, necessary to distinguish between the responsibilities of individual countries. Saudi Arabia is directly involved in military operations in Yemen, while Qatar cannot automatically be regarded as part of the same conflict. That does not, however, remove the need to consider the economic and political consequences of an event held in an area affected by such an escalation.

Formula 1 cannot claim to stand apart from politics when those very politics determine where it races, which commercial agreements it signs and which investments it accepts. Nor can it ignore that a Grand Prix is also an exceptional instrument of international promotion for the governments that host it.

The safety issue remains equally real. With airports and energy infrastructure in the crosshairs, and further military operations already announced, it appears exceptionally difficult to guarantee the conditions required for an event involving thousands of people.

For these reasons, cancelling the Qatar Grand Prix should be considered immediately, without waiting for a further deterioration in the situation to make inevitable a decision that is already justified by concrete concerns. Abu Dhabi must also be subjected to an equally rigorous assessment.

Formula 1 has built an important part of its economic growth through expansion in the Middle East. But there is a limit beyond which the value of a contract cannot become the sole criterion for making a decision. And if motorsport wishes to continue presenting itself as a sport capable of promoting universal values, it must show that those values matter even when they risk compromising the championship's economic interests.

The official announcement came on 13 October in Kigali, where a 10-year agreement was unveiled to host the African Grand Prix in Rwanda from the early years of the next decade. The World Championship will therefore return to the African continent for the first time since 1993, when the last South African Grand Prix was held at Kyalami.

FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem described the agreement as «a historic moment for our sport», stressing that the return to Africa represents an important step in motorsport’s global growth. He also assured that the Federation will work with Formula 1 and the organisers to ensure the new circuit meets the highest international standards.

But one part of his remarks deserves particular attention. Ben Sulayem explained that the agreement must serve to create «a lasting legacy», through the development of new talent, engaging younger generations and opening up opportunities for African motorsport. The president also stressed the issue of accessibility, recalling the FIA’s responsibility to take the sport to new communities and support its growth at every level.

«We will ensure that once Africa is in, it does not leave.» A statement that implies the existence of a long-term project and will be one of the most important measures of the venture’s success.

Can Formula 1 really help the African economy?

We are not sure this is the most important question, but it is difficult to ignore the contrast between the economic hardship faced by part of Africa’s population and the luxury, at times even excessive, that accompanies some events in the top category. Formula 1 is now a promotional platform with extraordinary international reach, capable of attracting visitors, investors and media attention. Hosting a Grand Prix, however, also involves enormous costs, especially when a circuit and all the necessary infrastructure must be built from scratch.

In a country such as Rwanda, where a significant part of the population still faces serious economic hardship, it is legitimate to ask how much of this investment can translate into tangible benefits for the population. Hotels, catering, transport and local businesses could certainly benefit, but it is far from guaranteed that the wealth generated by an international event will be distributed broadly enough.

Rwandan president Paul Kagame presented the project as an investment in the country’s future, capable of creating jobs, developing skills and attracting new economic activity. Stefano Domenicali also stressed that the aim is not simply to stage a race, but to generate economic and social benefits through tourism, investment and the growth of local businesses.

The decisive factors will above all be the funding model, the involvement of Rwandan businesses and the ability to use the infrastructure beyond race weekend. The circuit will in fact be built in Bugesera, around 40 kilometres south of Kigali, next to the new international airport, as part of a wider tourism and commercial development project. It is a potentially interesting approach, provided the economic benefits do not remain confined to the event and its main operators.

A spectacular circuit, at least on paper

From a sporting perspective, the first information about the layout is decidedly encouraging. The project, developed with input from former Formula 1 driver Alex Wurz and the Tilke and Dar studios, will make use of the natural contours of the terrain, characterised by hills and significant elevation changes.

The preliminary design calls for a circuit more than six kilometres long, with 17 corners, running anti-clockwise and featuring 197 metres of total elevation change over the lap. Very fast corners, elevated sections and steep gradients should define a layout that will also include a long straight followed by a demanding braking zone. All of it set in a hilly landscape overlooking Lake Kidogo.

Wurz described the future circuit as a kind of roller coaster, designed to showcase driving and test drivers and engineers. It is a prospect that particularly intrigues us, because it recalls a fundamental characteristic of some of history’s most fascinating circuits: the ability to exploit the natural contours of the land to create corners, changes in gradient and technical sequences truly capable of challenging those behind the wheel.

However, we would not want this project too to end up being shaped above all by television, commercial and architectural requirements. A circuit does not become interesting simply because it crosses a spectacular landscape or offers evocative helicopter shots. It must have its own sporting identity, corners requiring courage, lines that allow for different interpretations and characteristics capable of encouraging closely fought racing.

The hope is that, this time, the spectacle is designed for the track, not merely for what surrounds it. And that the announced elevation changes and ultra-fast corners are not just features to showcase in presentations, but become part of a circuit capable of winning over drivers and fans.

The risk of another white elephant

Finally, there remains a problem Formula 1 knows very well: major facilities built on the back of international ambitions, but destined for limited use once the Grand Prix spotlight has faded.

The organisers expect the new complex to host motorsport competitions, concerts, conferences and other events throughout the year, with a stated capacity of around 100,000 spectators. This is essential to justify an investment of this scale, but only time will tell whether there will be sufficient demand to sustain the facility economically over the long term.

This is where Ben Sulayem’s words on accessibility and talent development take on particular significance. It would be paradoxical to build one of the world’s most modern circuits on a continent that has waited more than 30 years for Formula 1’s return, without at the same time creating the conditions for a new generation of African drivers, technicians and fans to genuinely engage with motorsport.

Formula 1’s return to Africa is news we welcome enthusiastically. The continent deserves once again to be an integral part of the World Championship, and Rwanda certainly has the right to invest in its sporting and economic ambitions. But it would be a mistake automatically to regard a project as virtuous simply because it restores Formula 1’s presence in a geographical area from which it has been absent for far too long.

In 10 or 20 years’ time, the question will be a different one: will Rwanda have gained infrastructure capable of generating opportunity, employment and development, or merely a hugely expensive circuit to maintain?

Because, beyond the announcements and promises, the true legacy of a Grand Prix and such a major investment should not be measured by the spectacular images of one weekend, but also by what it manages to build in the area over the other 362 days of the year.

Cover photo www.formula1.com

Interior photo www.topafricanews.com

And who is going to stop him now?

Max Verstappen (10) has no intention of giving up what has always been his (10): another picture-perfect weekend for the Dutchman and Red Bull, who, all things considered, are currently the best on track. A major warning sign for their rivals, especially Mercedes (6), who have officially got their much-anticipated upgrades badly wrong: 2027 is already looking frightening.

Despite this, Antonelli, cautious and lucky (10), rather than admitting he is within touching distance of the world title, is seeing ghosts in his car: relax, Kimi, we get it, it is just reverse psychology!

Opportunities... gone begging?

Turning to the two Prancing Horses, a brilliant Leclerc (8) manages to put at least one Ferrari on the podium, while Hamilton (5) loses focus during the race, dropping from third to sixth. A real shame, given that this time there was the chance of an all-red double podium.

A desperate search is under way for the McLaren pair, who, after Lando Norris' huge mistake at the end of the Sprint and then in the race while fighting Antonelli for the podium, at least managed to finish fourth, followed by the solid Piastri, who once again brings home a few points. The MCL40's collapse is inexplicable, going from hero to zero.

The big comebacks

An honourable mention for Hadjar and Russell (7.5), who climbed from the back into the points: that is no easy feat in Singapore. Applause for Lawson (8), who takes Racing Bulls to 100 points in the constructors' standings, and for Hulkenberg (8), a genuine superhero in a car that remains far too fragile: Bortoleto confirms it from his motorhome (N.C.).

Newcomers and veterans... failed

While Alpine (4) leave empty-handed with both cars and Lindblad (3) faces his first underwhelming weekend, Haas spring back to life in brief but promising flashes, with Ollie Bearman (7) in the points in the Sprint and close to them in the main race: the youngster gave us plenty of fine overtakes, including one on poor Sainz (4), whose Williams is leaking from every possible place.

Doubts are growing at Cadillac, with Bottas (2) better off racing on his bicycle: perhaps then he would be faster than Perez (5). Constant prayers for Alonso and Stroll (N.C.), surely helpless in the face of the sensations that come with riding a rollercoaster: they have been experiencing them in their car for months.

Now all that remains is to let our boys rest, unlike good old Max, who is in action at Portimao, and wait for Austin, where Kimi has a great chance of putting Italy back on top.

Speak very soon, my friends,

Your Rompipaddock.

Cover photo by Peter Kiss / WHYOUT images

The current standings without Antonelli

Antonelli is undoubtedly the driver who most deserves to win the championship, but a look at the standings reveals something very curious. If we were to take Antonelli out of the equation and leave the standings as they are, Formula 1 fans would have a magnificent situation:

1. George Russell (Mercedes) 238 points (3 wins)
2. Lewis Hamilton (Ferrari) 229 points (1 win)
3. Max Verstappen (Red Bull) 221 points (2 wins)
4. Charles Leclerc (Ferrari) 215 points (1 win)
5. Lando Norris (McLaren) 201 points (2 wins)

Five drivers separated by 37 points. An incredibly compelling picture ahead of the two triple-headers that will shape the end of the season.

The virtual standings with Antonelli completely absent

Some may now point out that, without Antonelli, these would not exactly be the standings we would be looking at. But we have anticipated that and decided to set them out. Can you imagine who would be leading if Antonelli had not taken part in any of the 17 races held this year? We can reveal it:

1. Lewis Hamilton (Ferrari) 276 points (3 wins)
2. George Russell (Mercedes) 268 points (5 wins)
3. Charles Leclerc (Ferrari) 251 points (2 wins)
4. Max Verstappen (Red Bull) 247 points (3 wins)
5. Lando Norris (McLaren) 229 points (3 wins)

If you have been paying attention, you will notice that one victory is missing, which would in fact have gone to Oscar Piastri (Japanese GP).

The standings would not be as tight as those currently separating the five drivers in question, but they would still be very close with six races remaining. Ferrari's Hamilton would lead on 276 points, with Russell eight behind, Leclerc 25 adrift, Verstappen 29 back and Norris, further behind, 47 points off the top.

It would still be a fine championship without Antonelli, but Russell would be far from certain of winning the title. Indeed, we would surely be looking at Ferrari from a different perspective. It would be a season painted in clear, vivid shades of red, with the Prancing Horse poised to give us some intense emotions. As Italians, with or without Antonelli, we can say we would not have done badly at all.

photo: Ferrari

The last three Grands Prix of the Formula 1 World Championship have been marked by the emphatic return of Red Bull and its leading light Max Verstappen, who took an excellent second place in Baku before claiming two magnificent pole positions and two victories in Malaysia and Singapore, the latter dominated in both the Sprint and the main race.

Across those events, what made the RB22 not only competitive again but even the leading force was above all a major step forward in the use of the electrical side of the Red Bull power unit. In the first part of the season, it had been regarded as the strongest in terms of the internal-combustion engine, but appeared much further behind Mercedes and Ferrari in overall management.

Is downforce no longer needed to win?

Clearly, we cannot believe the power unit alone transformed the Milton Keynes car; the profound metamorphosis of the machine, particularly in the aerodynamics of the sidepods, has made it far more predictable and, for once, usable by both drivers.

The power unit, however, is the focal point of this season. Ferrari’s SF-26 proves it: from a chassis and aerodynamic perspective, it has nothing to envy the other front-running cars, yet it was unable to win in Singapore because the advantage built up in the corners was wiped out by the RB22 under acceleration and in top speed.

Verstappen’s driving style itself has changed: the Dutchman comes off the throttle metres earlier, does not use any partial throttle, lets the car roll through the corner without seeking the limit, and is happy to lose even valuable tenths in order to charge the battery to the maximum so he can accelerate explosively and recover what he has lost with interest.

For a driver of the calibre of the four-time world champion, it may seem almost sacrilegious, but it is effective, and Verstappen, like all great champions, has adapted to it in order to return to winning ways.

Looking at the telemetry from the last two races, one observation could be that 2026 cars do not need downforce in the corners.
The relatively slow speeds at which corners are taken in order to recharge the battery suggest that, counterintuitive though it may be compared with what we have known until now, there is no need to push the search for downforce to extremes, as it would serve no purpose.

Conversely, a car capable of generating plenty of downforce also brings with it a degree of drag that becomes an unwelcome burden on the straights.

Compared with the past, the focus has shifted to traction, which must be capable of putting all the immense torque delivered by the electric motor onto the track without, at the same time, overwhelming the rear tyres.

Returning to the Ferrari example, it is a very successful car, but only when compared with the past of this sport.
Until 2030, unless something changes, the chassis qualities of the Maranello car may count for nothing.

Confirmation came at the start of the season, when an informed source told us not to expect the 2026 car to be competitive because of its lack of overall downforce.
In reality, from the very first races, that same car was among the revelations of the grid and was therefore probably judged according to parameters that hold a different value under this regulatory framework than they did in the past.

Will the current philosophy also be rewarded in 2027?

As we know, at the time of writing, all teams are working on finalising their 2027 cars and, if this reasoning is correct, they may consider focusing on this development path, but that is far from certain.

The 2027 season will feature a different split between electric and combustion power, in favour of the latter, in an effort to avoid the paradoxical situations seen in the opening races, when drivers slowed noticeably in qualifying to charge the battery.

To achieve this, the Federation has, as is known, allowed an increase in fuel energy flow of around 5%, which naturally has the side effect of increasing consumption.

We also know that races will become shorter to allow some teams, including front-runners, to avoid rebuilding their chassis to accommodate larger fuel tanks.

All these changes could, however, reduce the importance of the electrical element enough to place the chassis qualities needed to increase cornering speed back at the centre of development.

In this writer’s view, the 5% increase in fuel energy flow will not be decisive, especially in combination with the new floor regulations that will limit the overall ability to generate downforce.

The real change could instead come with the 13% increase over the current situation planned for 2028.

The teams’ dilemma remains, in any case: continue development along the lines that are paying off today, or once again place at the centre of development the car characteristics that have historically made it fast?

Cover photo www.redbullcontentpool.com

Internal photo X: Oracle Red Bull Racing

But how much truth is there in that picture? Is Red Bull genuinely on the rise, or has the team from Stuttgart reached a dead end?

It is a fact that Red Bull, Ferrari and McLaren are all making performance gains in F1 at the moment. Some are taking bigger steps than others, but all are on a positive trajectory. Mercedes, however, has seemed a little more human and rather less otherworldly over the past two races, since introducing its most substantial upgrade package at the Bahrain GP in Malaysia.

Mercedes uses GPs as tests, and Singapore may not have been the only one

There may, however, be an explanation for all this. For now, team principal Toto Wolff is placing all the blame on the upgrades. The changes introduced with the new package were so radical that the engineers need time to understand how to optimise the new car. After Singapore, the Stuttgart-based team's boss said they even need to adopt a new philosophy in order to find the best set-up (read here).

This is certainly an aspect that must be taken into account, but Wolff is blatantly and knowingly lying to us. How can a car that demolished the opposition at Monza with Antonelli and in Azerbaijan with Russell suffer such a collapse at certain GPs? Every top team has claimed at least two wins this year, but none of Red Bull, Ferrari or McLaren has ever won by blowing its rivals away. Mercedes has a margin in hand and occasionally takes advantage of it to conduct tests, as it did in Singapore. It was the only weekend in which we received an admission from the Austrian manager.

Never trust Toto Wolff

Management will never admit it, clearly, but it may have orchestrated everything very intelligently in order to attract even less attention. F1 often boasts about having created a highly competitive and balanced championship. The pecking order changes from race to race, and the Stuttgart-based team is riding that wave, expanding its knowledge without always worrying about the final result. After all, it has such a large margin that it can even afford the odd routine podium finish.

Wolff is lying and knows he is lying when he says that Red Bull may have caught up, or when he appears concerned about the future. The new car concept being studied by his team could represent another major step forward for 2027. The team is devoting time to it and sacrificing victories because it believes in this package. The feeling is that Mercedes has found something interesting, but we will probably only find out how much in March.

Photo: Mercedes