That is how James Vowles, Williams team principal, presents himself: humble, approachable and realistic in answering the questions we were able to put to him. He speaks clearly and candidly, without looking for excuses as he assesses the situation facing his team, while expressing pride in his drivers and ambition for the future of the Grove outfit. All without forgetting his enviable career in the F1 paddock or offering his view on the sport’s future.

James, last year you worked with confidence towards this season. Now you are struggling: what do you think the real issue has been – delays in the project or incorrect technical decisions?

"In reality, the answer is both. The challenge is managing a greater number of components at the same time. So what happened? We spent quite a long time developing the foundations and tools needed to do our job as well as possible. The 2026 regulation change has been the most radical I have ever seen in F1, perhaps the biggest anyone has ever seen. Normally, you do not change the chassis, ECU and engine all at once. It was the first real test for our systems and we failed. We could not produce the components we wanted".

So manufacturing was struggling...

"Yes, we could not make the parts we wanted to the required time and quality standards. There were problems on every front".

But you also mentioned design mistakes: what happened?

"Exactly, there were design mistakes too: the car simply was not good enough. It was too heavy and aerodynamically weak. It did not have the required level of performance. Much of the problem came from the excessive weight and production delays. When delays build up, you are often forced to add weight simply to get the car completed. It is a vicious circle".

A situation in which the budget cap does not help, am I right?

"The budget cap is a very good initiative, but it means that when you make mistakes, you can no longer easily put them right and you find yourself stuck. We found ourselves with a car on which we spent much of the year trying to reduce weight, rather than focusing on development or fixing the internal tools that were not working properly. That carries costs and means we cannot develop the car at the same pace as other teams".

Beyond making the wrong technical choices, you also made mistakes in the “development” of your tools, would you agree?

"Exactly, the situation highlighted that our tools and systems are a long way from the standards of the best. We need to intervene. That is why I have confirmed everything you said in the question: there was not one single problem. I do not think our simulations, technical cycle management, design and manufacturing were up to scratch. I have been saying for some time that nothing we do is at a ‘championship’ level. I expected a step forward from the past. That did not happen".

In light of all this, what is your roadmap for the coming seasons?

"There is no real target tied to the standings. The objective is to fix the systems and tools, and continue investing until they reach the right level. That is the principle behind our work, a path that began alongside investment in new areas. This year, the imperative is to solve the existing problems, not look at the standings. The aim for 2027 is to have a car ready on time, within the weight limit and meeting the set specifications. It will not yet be at the level I would like, which is fighting the top four teams, given the current gap. But it should lay the foundations to look to the future with confidence and compete on equal terms, showing that we have made progress and that further steps forward are possible with continuous growth in mind".

You have made no secret of it: do you not consider Williams to be at the level of the top teams?

"I believe nothing we do is yet at the level of a top team. As I said, that is fine. It is not a problem, as long as people come together when things are difficult and aim to reach high standards, understanding what that means. Last year we built a good car and at times fought for important results, but we were still not at the level of the top teams. Now all of that has become even clearer because of the regulation change...".

You have Carlos Sainz in the team: do you think his arrival from a team like Ferrari has helped bring fresh ideas and a different mentality?

"The reason I wanted Carlos Sainz, but also Alex Albon, in the team is that they have experience of teams that have won the championship and they want this team to succeed too. That is why, every hour of every day, they push us to move forward. They are tireless, they always want to go faster and ask for help to accelerate progress in every area. It is positive; an organisation needs that drive to keep asking itself: ‘Are we championship material or not?’ We will get there, because we will keep giving everything until we are out of breath. The drivers are good enough; they have the ability to win a championship. At the moment, the car is not at that level, but what Carlos and Alex like is being able to make their voices heard, to be listened to and to see their feedback acted upon".

What do you think is Carlos Sainz’s greatest strength?

"I think Carlos’s greatest quality is his ability to understand what is happening with the car and connect the sensations to the data. One of his great strengths is knowing how to involve the engineers, bringing them together to deepen their understanding of the situation. He can identify a problem with extreme precision, down to the millisecond, and understand how to solve it. That is a rare trait when driving. When you drive, your sensations are strong; the feeling you have with the car is immense. That is why drivers tend to exaggerate: they get out of the car and say, ‘I have no grip’. In reality, there is grip; you would be inclined to say: ‘No, there is grip, but you feel you need more of it to make the car go faster.’ Carlos, on the other hand, is very good at not falling into that trap: he looks at the data and says: ‘I know it does not seem like a big thing, but this specific point is costing us three tenths. Let’s fix it.’ It is a very different approach, if you like".

Like Carlos, you also came from a top team in Mercedes: how much experience and knowledge have you brought to Williams?

"The fundamental thing I brought with me is being very clear about what excellence means: being able to lead the team from its current situation towards the world championship. There is the desire, the ability and the determination not to give up until you reach the top. After years of disappointing performances, mediocrity ends up becoming the norm. For me, that is not an acceptable condition: I do not sleep when we do not achieve the results we expect. That is where my desire to grow the team comes from. I have been fortunate and privileged to work in teams characterised by very high-level performance, where you were always pushed to give your best. That is precisely the culture and environment I wanted to bring to Williams".

Do you think your leadership style has been shaped by your previous experiences?

"Yes, certainly. I was fortunate to be part of a group of very high-level people. I am not talking only about Toto Wolff, who obviously had a huge influence, but also Ross Brawn, David Richards and the senior leaders I grew up with. Like many members of that team [Mercedes, ed.], we spent 25 years together, encouraging and challenging one another every day. It was like being among brothers and sisters, a relationship of constantly spurring each other on: a fantastic environment in which to grow".

Finally, on power units, do you believe engines will be similarly competitive in two or three years’ time, or will there still be differences like those seen today?

"It is an interesting question, because if we were not going to change the regulations for 2027 and 2028, I would be confident that the competitive order between Mercedes, Ferrari and Ford would remain unchanged. But there will be changes for 2027. That makes everything interesting: for power-unit manufacturers, it is difficult to maintain leadership. Mercedes is good at managing regulation changes. So, as far as we are concerned, I think we have the right power unit to make progress, and I believe performance convergence will take time. There is no single path to follow, but there will be new breakthroughs. The FIA has more data, but we know the Red Bull-Ford unit is exceptional. I have no doubts about that, but I do not think the gap will be excessive from here on".

Managers come and go

When fans are asked about Ferrari’s future and who they would like to see leading their beloved team, the answers emerge as simply as daisies in the sun. The most common names are, naturally, Horner and Wolff. Unfortunately, one is less likely than the other. We say unfortunately because the former Red Bull team principal and the current Mercedes boss have very strong personalities, which would be difficult to fit into Ferrari’s current system.

Fortunately, what we can say is that people come and go within a team. However good Toto Wolff may be, one day he will have to pass on his legacy to someone else. Will that spell the end for Mercedes? Not necessarily. It depends on what he leaves behind. If Wolff is good enough to leave the team with an idea, a vision, then Mercedes will always enjoy a successful organisation.

The Prancing Horse needs a vision

In business and team sports, there is sometimes a tendency to think that one individual can make a huge difference. That can happen, but it is not the only thing that matters. Just consider the year Newey and Aston Martin are having.

That is why we say Ferrari does not need prominent figures or illustrious managers. The Prancing Horse needs a vision, a project, a plan, but above all it needs to rediscover the determination and political strength the team once had. Achieving that does not necessarily require famous figures, but it does require presence, passion, sacrifice and commitment. These are qualities that can be found in anyone; it is simply a matter of knowing where to look.

Anyone can replace Wolff, but no one can replace an entire team. The team needs the right environment in which to grow authentically and strongly. Ferrari and Mercedes have their own identities because they are made up of a collection of very different minds. Wolff’s strength is that he wanted to make his tenure a unique period, something we have not seen happen at Ferrari for a very, very long time.

Beyond Mercedes and McLaren, only Ferrari have been able to win races. The only problem is that, even when they have won, they have not delivered performances as convincing as those of their rivals. Then there is Red Bull, who, despite having a driver like Max Verstappen at the wheel, have still not managed to win a race.

F1’s prodigies and failures

This is the F1 of prodigies: Antonelli above all, and Norris, who is beginning to win support. But it is also the F1 of failures. In this case, Leclerc above all. As stated, Ferrari and Red Bull certainly do not have a car capable of challenging Mercedes. The Scuderia were very consistent at the start of the season and managed to exploit two incidents that went in their favour to win races. Hamilton and Leclerc are grateful, but without these circumstances it would have been difficult for them to stand out.

Until the last race, however, Lewis was second overall behind Antonelli and was seen by the public as the man capable of reviving the team, while Leclerc, by contrast, was repeatedly called into question because of one too many mistakes.

It is all the result of an inattentive and distorted narrative. Unfortunately, Leclerc and Verstappen represent F1’s other side. Verstappen has also made frequent mistakes this year, yet nobody has ever dared say a word against him. Perhaps because he is a four-time world champion? Perhaps because his car is considered far inferior to the Mercedes? They are all hypotheses. The fact is that Max has made several mistakes, but nobody has said anything, while Leclerc, despite also winning a race at Silverstone, is often criticised and put in the dock.

Verstappen and Leclerc have more in common than you might think

What Verstappen and Leclerc have in common is that, in 2026, no matter how hard they push, they will never be able to fight for the title. Therefore, the fact that they make mistakes is simply experience. They are seeking the limits, and it is better to spend this season trying to find them than to arrive in 2027 with unresolved doubts.

Verstappen and Leclerc have more in common than you might think, especially this season. Whether to criticise them or not is a choice that belongs to us alone. But simply look at the standings. If the occasions on which they made mistakes had ended in points, would they now… perhaps be fighting for the title? Unfortunately not.

Cover photo by Luca Martini / WHYOUT Images

The Bergamo-based wheel and rim manufacturing specialist was first the owner of its own team and then closely linked to Minardi between the 1990s and early 2000s, thanks to the passion of its founder, Gabriele Rumi.

In 2026, his heirs Stefano and Alessandra Rumi, driven by the same passion, brought Fondmetal back to the top flight through an exclusive partnership with Aston Martin F1 to supply wheel rims.

Formula1.it had the honour and pleasure of attending the “Fondmetal meets Formula 1” event, held at the company’s Palosco headquarters, where renowned journalist Paolo Ciccarone and Matteo Bobbi discussed this technological partnership with Fondmetal specialist James Smith and Aston Martin F1 Engineering Director Luca Furbatto.

An extreme technological challenge

The British team’s technical expert highlighted the technological challenge posed by this new regulatory era in designing the car’s wheel rim, explaining:

“From 2022 to 2025, the wheels were identical for everyone under the regulations, in order to curb the escalation in thermal exploitation that had characterised the previous years, when teams manufactured their own rims.
From 2026, by contrast, the supply and development of this component in collaboration with the supplier has been liberalised. Wheels are now among the open-source components: this means that, once developed, they must be published on the FIA website, relinquishing their intellectual property and making it available to all teams.”

It is in precisely this context that the collaboration between Fondmetal and Aston Martin began, with the two parties working on defining the wheels for the current single-seater as early as 2025.
It was an intensive process, involving the search for the best compromise among no fewer than 22 different initial designs for both the front and rear rims.
Furbatto’s description of the current product is impressive and can be summed up in these words:

“The rim is made from forged magnesium. The raw blank weighs around 40kg but, after machining, the finished part weighs around 6kg. However, the design is not dictated solely by weight parameters, but also by the aerodynamic interaction sought with the rest of the single-seater and by the role the component plays in managing heat transfer to optimise tyre usage.”

A difficult balance between weight, aerodynamics and manufacturing requirements 

Also of interest was the contribution from James Smith, a highly experienced engineer in the forged motorsport wheel sector who joined Fondmetal specifically to meet the challenge presented by this renewed Formula 1 commitment.
The British engineer explained the role played by the Bergamo-based company during the design phase in these words:

“We had intensive interaction with Aston Martin from the development phase onwards, receiving load specifications as well as design feedback related to aerodynamic aspects. The difficulty lies in balancing these requirements with the ease of manufacturing the rim through machining. We are pleased with the result, which has led to a front wheel with seven hollow spokes and a disc-type rear wheel. Furthermore, our rim is probably the lightest of all and features a bowl thickness of just 2.5mm.”

The FIA regulations set the minimum rim thickness at 2.5mm, so Fondmetal deserves credit for taking its design to the regulatory limit.

In light of these extreme characteristics, Furbatto added further interesting information regarding the delicate management of a component whose importance often remains overlooked, stating:

“The maximum fatigue life of the rim has been set by us at Aston Martin at 2,000km, and we carry out inspections approximately every 500km. In reality, its effective lifespan is much shorter because it is easy to damage the rim during tyre fitting operations or at a pit stop.”

Passion and technology

Fondmetal CEO Stefano Rumi, heir to the historic founder, explained the reasons behind the return to Formula 1, starting with the passion that has always distinguished the Brescia family:

“We have always wanted to return to the top flight, and the current regulations represented the right opportunity. We recruited people with decades of experience in the world of racing wheels and sounded out several partners, but we wanted to work with only one team in order to dedicate all our resources to it. In the end, we chose Aston Martin, which also has sentimental value because Fernando Alonso took his first steps in Formula 1 at Minardi, when my father was still team principal.”

Being in Spain, the conversation naturally turned to Fernando Alonso, Aston Martin’s disappointing form and the possible retirement of the now 45-year-old driver. What was most surprising about the FIA president’s remarks was not his praise for a driver who has genuinely given body and soul to the world of motorsport, while receiving far less than he truly deserved. No, it was not that, but one highly delicate passage that literally left us open-mouthed.

A serious misstep

According to Ben Sulayem, it is unacceptable to see Fernando fighting at the back of the field, a view that is also understandable, and he said he had taken action in May by changing the ADUO regulations to allow Honda to recover more quickly after its winter disaster. Making that kind of admission in public is far from ideal, although it could still somehow be defended. But then… Sulayem said he had asked Alonso to outline his wishes, to let him know what he needs to return to fighting at the front. Even more worryingly, the FIA president said he was ready to meet his requests (read the interview here).

These remarks encapsulate what could be described as a serious misstep. It appeared as though the FIA was putting the interests of an individual, or at least a small group of people – Aston Martin-Honda in this case – ahead of those of the sport. Statements of this kind damage the category’s credibility. Why should Alonso receive different treatment from everyone else? Why help Aston Martin catch Mercedes and not the others too? These are legitimate questions that a fan will, rightly, ask sooner or later.

F1 does not need special treatment

Fortunately, as Sulayem himself said, the regulatory help came through several changes to the ADUO regulations. Changes that ultimately affected not only Honda, but all the other manufacturers as well.

Mohammed Ben Sulayem probably wanted to express his support for Fernando Alonso during the difficult period he is going through and, in the sporting interest of seeing him race for a few more years and at a high level, made an unintended gaffe. At least, that is our hope.

Special treatment is unwelcome in any sphere, least of all in Formula 1. If action is to be taken, it must always be taken in the name of the collective, never for an individual. Otherwise, the sport suffers.

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

The qualifying battle was extremely close. So close, in fact, that Hamilton beat Charles by just six thousandths of a second: 1’32’’013 for Hamilton, 1’32’’019 for Leclerc. At first glance, one might say that the ADUO-2 did not make such a significant contribution. What are six thousandths over a lap that takes 92 seconds to complete? Nothing. Even looking at top speeds, the differences are minimal: around 3-4km/h on the purely straight sections. The question asked repeatedly was: does the ADUO-2 really make a difference compared with the ADUO-1?

Having carefully analysed the telemetry, we have reached conclusions which suggest that the Spanish layout did not allow the strengths of the new specification developed in Maranello to fully emerge. The ADUO-2 was designed to maximise straight-line performance while suffering less from the issues encountered in Austria. The change to the angle of the turbine blades was made precisely for this purpose.

How Hamilton and Leclerc adapted to their respective power units

The technical gap between the two power unit specifications did not emerge in Spanish GP qualifying for two reasons: 1) there were no long straights; 2) Leclerc and Hamilton were both very good at tailoring their qualifying driving styles to the power unit at their disposal.

Speed graph - Leclerc and Hamilton compared - Madring 2026 qualifying

If we look at the graph from GPTempo.com and zoom in on the two drivers’ speed traces between Turns 1 and 3, two particularly interesting details emerge. The first is that Leclerc tries to exploit the “advantage” of having a “small” turbine, putting the power unit under greater demand during the traction phase. Hamilton, by contrast, has a turbine of the same diameter, but with the blades angled differently to deliver greater benefits at higher revs, and makes greater use of the unit in acceleration.

Two driving styles, two different ways of recharging the battery

The obvious question at this point is: why does Hamilton’s top speed not shoot through the roof, instead remaining fairly close to, albeit higher than, that achieved by the Monegasque? This is where our theory comes in. To make greater use of traction while also recharging the battery, the driver of car number 16 brakes much earlier than car 44, which instead exploits the higher top speed achieved before losing out on corner exit.

Speed graph - Leclerc and Hamilton compared, zoomed in on the first three corners - Madring 2026 qualifying

But if Charles lifts and brakes earlier to recharge, how does Hamilton recharge? By using the engine. Hamilton’s top speeds do not shoot through the roof, but gradually approach a peak before dropping off, probably because Lewis is using the engine to recharge the batteries at that point.

In essence, the Madring layout did not allow Hamilton to fully show the performance level of the ADUO-2. It effectively drained it of its potential. Things should be very different in Baku. The Azerbaijan circuit features the longest straight on the calendar, and that is where the ADUO-2 will come into its own. The fact that it is better than the ADUO-1 is demonstrated by Ferrari’s apparent determination to use it on Charles Leclerc’s car at all costs as well.

Conclusions

Ultimately, the different power units at their disposal led Hamilton and Leclerc to adopt completely different driving styles in Spain. When one made up ground in a sector, the other had the upper hand in the next. The six-thousandths gap stems from the combination of all these factors: different engines, different driving styles and a different approach to battery recharging.

What will happen in Baku?

The Monegasque is still waiting to find out whether the Monza unit can be recovered. If the checks produce a positive result, Charles will not face any kind of issue. Should the team instead decide to fit car number 16 with a new unit, something the team appears already to have considered, Leclerc would inevitably have to start from the back of the grid.

However, it is better to start last but have some chance of putting together a strong race than to endure a race like Austria, where the engine suffered excessively and Ferrari had no say in the GP.

The facility, opened this afternoon at 22 Via Cardinala, stands on the site previously occupied by the hamlet’s old schools and is one of the projects funded by the fundraising campaign launched by Leclerc immediately after the flooding in May 2023.

At the time, the Monegasque driver chose to auction some of his most important memorabilia, including the race suit, helmet and gloves he had used in Formula 1, with the proceeds going to people affected by the emergency. Years on, that gesture continues to deliver tangible results.

The new civic centre has a total value of almost €530,000 and was funded largely through the Ferrari driver’s donation. Nor is it the first project made possible by Leclerc’s contribution: in recent months, a new outpatient clinic between Via Cardinala and Via Benelli and the redevelopment of the playground near the Santerno river and the Autodromo have already been opened.

Leclerc returns to Imola

Leclerc arrived in Spazzate Sassatelli at around 6pm, welcomed by the City of Imola Musical Band, which performed the Italian and Monegasque national anthems. Emilia-Romagna regional president Michele de Pascale, Imola mayor Marco Panieri, Bishop Giovanni Mosciatti and numerous local residents also attended the ceremony.

Following the blessing of the new premises and the official speeches, the Ferrari driver took part in the ribbon-cutting before touring the facility and meeting the community he had chosen to help during one of the most difficult periods in the area’s recent history.

The new building, measuring around 128 square metres, has been built as a nearly zero-energy structure and includes a multipurpose hall for meetings and public activities, a second room, services and technical areas. It is a genuine focal point designed to restore a gathering place for the hamlet following the damage caused by the floods.

Of particular significance was the thanks offered to Leclerc by regional president Michele de Pascale, who underlined how the solidarity shown during the emergency had now become something concrete and long-lasting, set to remain available to the community.

Imola mayor Marco Panieri echoed those sentiments, recalling how the driver had chosen to personally support the area, turning some symbols of his sporting career into real assistance. The new civic centre is therefore the third tangible outcome of that charitable initiative, following the projects dedicated to healthcare and green space.

Cover photo www.comune.imola.bo.it

Just hours after his success in the junior category, however, young Ugochukwu is making headlines not for his on-track results, but for certain distinctive aspects of his physique which, as well as causing him difficulties this year, could also lead to problems in the future.

Fresh from winning F3, Ugo Ugochukwu does not yet know which team he will drive for in 2027, but he can be certain of the difficulties he will face in literally finding space in Formula 1, particularly because of the “hatred” he will attract from mechanics.

A physique that is difficult to ''handle''

We are joking, of course, but a physique like the American’s is certainly not easy to fit into the survival cell of a single-seater. Ugo is still dreaming of reaching F1, but he can rest assured that, when he gets there, he will certainly be the tallest driver on the grid. At 19, he stands 192cm tall, a full 7cm taller than Russell.

Unfortunately for him, that would not be an outright record. Formula 1 has had taller drivers in the past. Hans-Joachim Stuck raced in the late 1970s and measured 194cm, while Justin Wilson, who raced in 2003, stood between 193cm and 194cm.

Ugo’s talent far outweighs his height

Of course, his size will make Ugochukwu a mechanic’s nightmare. Weight and height are far from negligible characteristics for a driver. Weight has a negative impact on a car’s performance, while height has a major effect on its centre of gravity. Moreover, fitting 192cm of person into a survival cell is no easy task.

Esteban Ocon (186cm), Alexander Albon (186cm), George Russell (185cm), Nico Hülkenberg (184cm) and their respective teams know all about it.

Height is not a desirable attribute in a driver. Generally speaking, a tall driver tends to be slower than a shorter one. The fact that Ugochukwu’s talent has managed to prevail over his size says a great deal about his potential.

Cover photo: X, F3; in-article photo: Instagram, Mara Sangiorgio

Mercedes were confident they would do a great job; it was written all over the faces of their engineers at the end of 2025. Although they were not making bold predictions at the time, they were certain they had done a great job. And, naturally, so were all their customers. Alpine have shown that their decision to temporarily move away from Renault power to engines from Stuttgart has paid off. After a difficult start, McLaren are gradually recovering and are fighting Ferrari for second place in the constructors' standings, while a major disappointment has undoubtedly come from Grove.

Williams, who repeatedly stated last year that the Mercedes power unit would allow them to make the step forward they had been pursuing for so long, now find themselves at the bottom of this select group. You will remember well Sainz's answers to those who asked whether he regretted no longer being part of Scuderia Ferrari.

From dream to collapse: broken promises

The start was disappointing. Due to mistakes made at the factory – with reports also pointing to infrastructure unsuited to the regulatory change – the team had to miss the first winter test in Barcelona, leading to problems that persisted into the start of the season, including an overweight car and a shortage of spare parts.

The ending, however, could take on almost horror-like shades when you think about it. Unlike Ferrari, who are indeed disappointing their fans but have always been consistent in their choices and, above all, have never made statements that overstated the car's potential, 2026 has left two teams in a particularly deep state of bitterness.

Aston Martin are without doubt the team that have disappointed the most. Major investment, no results. Alongside them, however, are Williams: big plans, no substance. Aston Martin's management, together with Honda, have got everything wrong and find themselves in this situation as victims of the poor choices made at the start of the year.

Vowles' bewildering indifference

The Grove team, on the other hand, have the advantage of being Mercedes-powered, with the best engine on the grid at their disposal, and failing to exploit it is certainly a rather serious matter. Team principal James Vowles arrived at Williams in 2023 and implemented an internal revolution that enabled the team to finish the 2025 world championship as the fifth-strongest force, behind only the top teams.

With the Mercedes power unit available, more was expected. Williams themselves expected more. Sainz expected more. Something went wrong over the winter, however, and the team have never recovered from it. Vowles had begun a cycle: from 2023 to 2025, significant progress had been made by a team always forced to manage its budget carefully just to make it through to the end of the year.

But then something did not work in 2026, and the worst part is not having made a mistake. Errors are allowed: everyone makes them, big and small teams alike. What is missing is accountability. For months, Vowles has done nothing but shift blame and problems onto the team, without taking on the responsibility that his role demands.

The team have shown they can respond in the past and they will respond again, but seeing Gasly's Alpine take pole at Monza while the Williams cars of Sainz and Albon fight Aston Martin and Cadillac in Madrid qualifying suggests that the blame cannot be placed solely on infrastructure. Especially as Vowles, having succeeded Jost Capito in 2023, has had plenty of time to prepare.

A whinge from start to finish...

This time, we will not begin by passing judgement on the drivers, but on a track built from scratch which, rather than stirring excitement, increased the global sleepiness index. Madring simply does not come alive; if anything, it just makes you angry: a race with only four overtakes and a constant single-file procession of cars which, rather than racing, looked like they were waiting their turn at the deli counter.

...And the FIA had a hand in it too

We had a race leader beaten by the poor management of the stewards: Lando Norris (9) was the true winner of the GP but, because of a Virtual Safety Car deployed at their whim, every chance of victory disappeared, in a race in which he was also among the quickest of those at the front in terms of pace.

Staying at the front, Charles Leclerc produced a “phantom leader” race: for most of the time, he led the pack on hard tyres that proved far too durable, waiting for a twist which, clearly, never came. A major result did not materialise for a driver who, objectively, drove superbly throughout the race; a shame about qualifying, as victory might genuinely have been on the cards. Ferrari’s only bright spot, given the first DNF for Lewis Hamilton, who was forced to retire with a brake problem on his SF-26 (N.C.).

Clearly taking advantage was our Antonelli (8), now a hawk flying away towards his first world title: I have heard people say luck does not exist; well, perhaps some people have memory lapses. Luck exists in every aspect of life, including F1, and if the boy has it, good for him. We will conclude this paragraph with good old Verstappen (8), on the podium once again and at odds with Red Bull: over what happened at the start with Lewis Hamilton, the Dutchman was more than right. Had he not given the position back, he probably would have won the race: his first win of the season has still not come, but a lion like him never gives up.

The midfield: what a performance from Colapinto!

While Russell has now become a drifter (6) and Lawson continues to bring valuable points to Red Bull (7), the real star outside the leading group was undoubtedly Franco Colapinto (8), who, after his tears following the Monza race, delivered a solid performance in Madrid, giving us some of the few overtakes recorded: Argentina celebrates its favourite, now at one with his Alpine. A poor showing from Gasly, who has gone from hero to zero in less than a week (5). Lindblad and Hulkenberg pass the test, now a genuine guarantee of points finishes (7.5). 

Among the semi-failures and complete flops

The biggest disappointment was undoubtedly Oscar Piastri, a shadow of himself in this race (5): Norris is eclipsing him this season, during which the Australian, apart from Monza, has lacked the boldness and consistency that were so characteristic of him until 2025.

On to the back of the field, with an Ocon who came close to the points (5.5) and a crash-happy Bearman who could not fight back after failing to qualify following his FP3 accident (4). Perez, Bottas and Albon remain in their secure jobs (4), while Alonso (6) gets a solid pass for giving Carlos four of them, with Sainz (3) far too argumentative and not clean enough on track. Finally, a round of applause for Lance Stroll for “ruining” a race: Lance, next time at least park the car in the middle of the track! (2) [only joking, obviously].

One week and we are off to Baku, a circuit where, in my view, we will see Monza 2.0 again. Prediction delivered; now all that remains is to wait.

Speak soon, my friends.

Your Rompipaddock.

The excitement surrounding the young Italian phenomenon has perhaps diverted some attention from the Mercedes W17, which is emerging as a contender for a place among the ten most successful single-seaters of the past 30 years, perhaps even the top five.

The intention is not to detract from Antonelli’s qualities, especially as his team-mate is enduring a particularly subdued season in the same car, but rather to highlight the quality of the work done at Brackley and the fact that no driver can aspire to the World Championship Crown without a car capable of matching their ambitions.

You cannot win the World Championship without the best car

Max Verstappen knows that well. With the competitive but imperfect RB21, he clawed back more than 100 points on Lando Norris last season, but did not win the Championship; this year, he has had to settle for the lower steps of the podium, driving the difficult RB22 superbly beyond its limits.

Yet everyone remembers the 2023 season, when Milton Keynes’ creation won 21 of the 22 races on the calendar and will, in all likelihood, go down in history as the most successful car of all time.

Alongside the already mentioned RB19, the distinguished lineage of ultra-dominant cars also includes other legendary machines, which in turn made the drivers who took them to victory legendary.

After the 2023 Red Bull, the second most successful car of all time was the Mercedes W07, which won 19 of 21 races in the 2019 season, securing Lewis Hamilton’s fifth of his seven drivers’ titles.

Third in this special ranking is the Ferrari F2002, which we recently saw triumph at Monza in Sebastian Vettel’s hands. Ironically, Michael Schumacher also won his fifth title in the historic car, which claimed 15 wins from 17 races.

What about the W19?

The championship is not over yet, and McLaren have emerged as a serious challenger to Mercedes following the upgrades introduced in Hungary.

However, the Brackley team’s car has won more than 70 per cent of the races, while the aforementioned cars boast success rates of around 90% or considerably higher.

That impressive statistic comes despite several costly retirements that denied it at least two potential victories; moreover, it is among the cars to have received the fewest upgrades in a season in which every change has a direct impact on the stopwatch.
As for the power unit, it should be remembered that, surprisingly, the internal-combustion element is not the best, and an ADUO upgrade is ready but has not yet been used.

There is another interesting statistic in favour of the Silver Arrows: four of the ten most successful cars in history are Mercedes machines from the pre-ground-effect regulatory era (2014-2021), while during the following four-year period Brackley unfortunately never managed to produce a title-winning car.

Perhaps it is no coincidence that, having returned to cars more similar to those of the first turbo-hybrid era and once again been tested on the power-unit front, the engineers led by James Allison have once more created a title-winning machine.

Antonelli therefore has the chance to write his name alongside the greats of the past, but only thanks to a car that is in contention to do the same.

A very tight leading group

Compared with Monza, the overall picture has been completely turned upside down. McLaren is proving very quick at circuits where slow corners dominate. Norris takes pole position, but by only a few thousandths, with Mercedes, Red Bull and Ferrari all very close behind. Four teams covered by a gap of just 189 thousandths. The papaya cars are strong, yes, but not overwhelmingly so.

The rest of the grid is still too far behind the leader

Unfortunately, though, if we look further down the order, we have to go as far as a gap of around one second to find Alpine (which took pole with Gasly at Monza). Then come VCARB, Audi and Haas, a further eight tenths back (1.8 seconds off the leader overall). Taking a decisive step backwards are Williams, Aston Martin and Cadillac, which find themselves facing a deficit of between 3.5 and four seconds.

[[[og]]]

The competitive order changes, but at the top of the standings there is always a Mercedes-powered team. No other team has taken pole position so far. The only exception came from Lewis Hamilton in a Ferrari, although that was during Sprint Qualifying at the British Grand Prix. Since then, the Scuderia has been unable to repeat the feat. This is an F1 that seems to speak only Mercedes, and fans are eager to hear it speaking other languages soon.

Cover photo by Luca Martini / WHYOUT Images

McLaren secured their third pole position of the season, all of them coming at circuits suited to the car, making the MCL40 a benchmark in that respect. Naturally, the papaya team are still a long way from being able to challenge Mercedes consistently, but they have taken a step forward. One came from the engineers, through the right upgrades; the other came from Lando Norris, who, just like Antonelli, has understood the rules of the game (read here).

Ferrari cannot keep pace

The Woking team are the only outfit, aside from the Stuttgart-based squad, to show any kind of consistency. Had Lando Norris also managed to win at the Madring – and without the VSC, he would have done so – all of his victories would have been more than deserved. The same cannot be said of Ferrari's wins (Hamilton in Spain and Leclerc at Silverstone), both of which came in circumstances that favoured the SF-26.

While the papaya team are celebrating the progress they are making from race to race, Ferrari are unable to match the pace of their rivals. With Mercedes the benchmark at high-speed circuits and McLaren the established reference at slower, more technical venues, the Prancing Horse risk losing even the status of second-best team that they seemed to have firmly in their grasp at the start of the season.

Only 52 points separate Ferrari from McLaren, while the shadow of Lando Norris has grown ever larger and more threatening behind Hamilton (Lewis' advantage over his British compatriot has fallen to five points).

Ferrari are inexorably heading towards a difficult end to the season

Ferrari, both as a team and as a group of supporters, are heading towards an unexpected end to the season, one that will probably change not only the fate of this championship but also those to come. McLaren look like the team we already saw in 2023/2024, while the Maranello outfit, despite showing good things in the opening months of 2026, have failed to take off. They have not understood the potential the SF-26 has to offer, nor do they appear to be making the most of what they do know.

Too often, we have heard Frédéric Vasseur searching for excuses or justifications for performances that were unexpected even for the team. And while Maranello are still trying to find answers to their off days, Mercedes and McLaren are making progress. Improvements that translate into points and will probably lead the historic Scuderia into a difficult end to the season.

Hopefully without repercussions for next year's championship.

Photo: Ferrari

Lando Norris has taken three pole positions in 2026: the first in Hungary, the second at Zandvoort and the third in Madrid. These are very similar circuits, highlighting the great work and progress made by the Woking team since the start of the year. They are tracks on which the 2026 world champion has only missed out on victory at the Madring. That success slipped away solely because of the timing of the Virtual Safety Car.

Had the race run normally, without neutralisations, Lando would probably have won at a canter. The Briton was almost always the fastest driver on track, and losing the Grand Prix in that way was hugely frustrating for him.

Norris has no reason to be downcast

However, Norris has no reason to be downcast. A victory is always a victory, of course, but the 2026 world championship is now largely heading Mercedes' way and, for the Briton, winning or not winning in Madrid is merely a statistical matter, nothing more.

What we must acknowledge is the development and progress made by McLaren in recent times. The MCL40 has become very strong on slow, technical circuits, perhaps even the benchmark for the other cars, while remaining a good car on tracks that demand greater speed.

Norris has understood the rules of the game

But there is one aspect that cannot and must not go unnoticed: the incredible step Norris has made. Only Lando appears capable of taking the MCL40 to these levels, much as Antonelli does at Mercedes. It seems Norris has begun to understand the rules of the game and, after a learning phase, has started to get serious.

In this respect, Kimi Antonelli must be very careful. Not so much for 2026, a year that is following a path we could describe as favourable to the Italian's success, but above all with 2027 in mind. The Bologna-born driver has had two factors work in his favour this year: 1) having the best car on the grid; 2) managing to understand how to drive the new cars much earlier than everyone else. Until a few races ago, he was virtually the only one who knew how to do it.

Now, though, he must be careful. He will no longer be playing alone in the closing stages of the season and Norris, given what McLaren has been capable of in recent seasons, will use these final races as a test to refine his knowledge further and raise the bar for 2027. It will probably be a season which, especially if other drivers can make a significant step forward like Lando, will feature a very different title battle from the current one.

A champion, as they say, also needs a little luck, and Antonelli has been kissed by fortune on several occasions this season. For many users on social media, however, the timing of the Virtual Safety Car was a coincidence that was just too convenient, and Nico Rosberg’s commentary from the booth did not help matters. “Toto always gets what he wants,” said the German. So, is it possible to think the stewards deliberately helped the Italian?

Team radio and timing

At 3:26, Stroll’s car comes to a halt. Lando Norris drives past it, but the signals show only yellow flags. The Briton asks his engineer about the extent of the damage, but the pit wall gives him a confused response, saying they have not yet seen the footage. At 3:27, the Virtual Safety Car is deployed just as the McLaren standard-bearer passes the pit lane, allowing Antonelli, Verstappen and Russell to pit. While the track is being cleared, the Woking team decides what to do and then informs the world champion: they would have stopped even without the VSC. It was not a brilliant call, made worse by the restart at 3:29, while the driver was in the pits. By contrast, Bono had pre-warned Kimi about a possible stop, asking him to increase the gap slightly.

In conclusion, there is not enough evidence to suggest any “blatant” favouritism, although these sorts of games are nothing new for the FIA – just remember how 2021 ended. What can be criticised, however, is the imperfect timing: for several Grands Prix now, race control has taken a moment too long to understand what needs to be deployed, or has mishandled recovery vehicles, meaning teams have no benchmarks on which to base their strategies. Norris, meanwhile, had everything go wrong for him, from the lengthy stop to the wrong decision to pit. Secondly, it should be remembered that no champion has won through “pure talent” alone: they also need the fastest car, the most efficient team and luck at the right moment.

The race had three potential winners. Each of them had every chance of winning, but one important factor was missing for any driver to rise from the ashes and become the undisputed star of the event: the C3 Medium tyre. Today, the drivers effectively raced with only one tyre compound.

All the race strategies

The Madrid GP proved to be a one-stop race, thanks to the excellent performance of the C2 Hard. Had the drivers been forced to rely on the C3 and C4, even two stops would not have been enough.

There was a wide variety of compound choices at the start of the GP, but when the VSC arrived on lap 15, as we had predicted before the race, the most rewarding strategy was to start on the Soft tyre (on a par with the Mediums) before switching to the Hard for the remainder of the race (read here). Our briefing was half right. We identified the right starting compound and the uncertainty between one and two stops, but we believed more strongly in a two-stop strategy than a one-stop race. The C2 Hard displayed remarkable consistency, especially with Leclerc, who completed 48 laps on it to finish fourth (Gasly managed 55, but finished 12th).

Antonelli won the race on a Medium-Hard strategy, making his pit stop behind the Safety Car. The impressive Colapinto, Lindblad, Ocon and Albon did the same. Norris adopted the same strategy, pitting a lap later. Starting on Softs and pitting under the VSC to fit Hards were Verstappen and Hulkenberg. Most of those who started on Hards then chose to follow Leclerc's path, ignoring the Virtual Safety Car period and staying out for as long as possible. Those who adopted this approach made just one stop. Leclerc, Gasly and Bortoleto used a Hard-Soft strategy, while Lawson, Piastri and Tsunoda opted for Hard-Medium.

Russell, who chose to pit under the VSC despite being on Hard tyres, found himself committed to a two-stop race with a dramatic surprise: a lack of pace on the C3 Mediums. His H-M-H strategy put him P5, behind Leclerc. Haas's Bearman followed a similar strategy, making his first stop on lap 33; Alonso went Hard-Soft-Hard and Bottas Hard-Hard-Soft. Retirements: Sainz, Perez, Stroll and Hamilton.

The race's moral winners: Norris and Leclerc

Had there been no Virtual Safety Car, we would have seen Lando Norris take his third McLaren victory of the year. His pace was good enough to win the race without any difficulty. The fact that he recovered to P3 and caught Verstappen, despite being unable to take advantage of the VSC for his pit stop, demonstrates his potential: race control displayed the panels after Lando crossed the line on lap 15 and withdrew the VSC shortly before the Briton reached the pit lane, preventing him from racing on equal terms with those ahead.

In our view, the race control decision was appropriate to its remit. The stewards must not distort the outcome of the GP, but act according to the danger on track. If they also began to consider car positions before deploying a red flag, VSC or Safety Car, the risk of influencing the race outcome would be greater.

By choosing not to pit immediately like his rivals, Leclerc led the race from lap 16 to lap 48: 32 laps out of 57, almost two-thirds of the GP. His pace matched the position he occupied. On many occasions he was also the fastest driver on track, and he managed the C2 compound impressively. Antonelli, of course, was not pushing flat-out knowing that Charles still had to make his stop, but the Monegasque nevertheless delivered an exceptional race. Had there been a late Safety Car or red flag, he would have been favourite for victory.

This is why we speak of three winners: Norris, Leclerc and, of course, Antonelli. Although fortune was on his side, this time he managed the car and tyres perfectly, pushing as hard as required in every phase of the GP without overdoing it. The Italian is showing impressive maturity and, even though he has the best car in the championship, there is no doubt that he deserves to lead the standings.

The tyres require careful analysis for the future

Unfortunately, the tyres were lacking in Madrid. For the Spanish round, Pirelli selected the C2 Hard, C3 Medium and C4 Soft. Throughout the weekend, we reported on teams struggling to use the C3, but we never imagined it could affect so many cars. The longest stint on this compound was 14 laps, both for those who started on it and for Russell, who fitted it midway through the race.

We believed it could be a handicap for Ferrari, but in the end it affected everyone. The Prancing Horse team knew it would have problems and tried to delay its stop to avoid it. The lack of pace on the C4 Soft was, however, a surprise.

These difficulties open up a rather strange scenario. Drivers were able to complete the event's 57 laps without trouble on just one set of C2s. Therefore, considering bringing the C1 in 2027 would be ultra-conservative and serve no purpose. Charles, however, needed a more consistent C3 to show himself to be competitive and strong enough to trouble his rivals at the end. Had he had a Medium that was up to the task, one that did not lose performance so quickly, also because of graining, he could have considered pitting with around 20 laps remaining to attempt a recovery. Today, however, Leclerc and Ferrari had no choice. The pit wall could do nothing but place its race in the hands of fate, hoping for a Safety Car.

Pirelli's comment

As usual, the thoughts of Pirelli's motorsport director at the end of the event: “The teams' approach was different from what had been simulated on Friday. The VSC allowed the drivers to focus more on managing pace and tyre degradation, extending their stints and completing the race with just one pit stop. The Hard was the major protagonist, with stints of more than 45 laps without showing any significant drop-off in performance.”

Despite high temperatures of around 52°C: “The Medium and Soft proved to be valid options. The C4 in particular completed stints almost at the level of the C3 Medium. Graining mainly affected the front-left, but it was fairly limited,” concluded Dario Marrafuschi.

Cover photo: X, Ferrari; internal graphics Pirelli; internal photo: X, Ferrari

The start: Norris strong, Hamilton disaster

When the lights went out, Norris managed to retain the lead, while Antonelli, battling Verstappen, was in turn pushed wide by Hamilton. The latter attempted to pass the drivers ahead of him on the inside, but without success. To avoid a penalty, Red Bull asked Verstappen to hand the position back to Hamilton and, with Antonelli also behind him, allowed both through.

However, the twist came shortly afterwards: Hamilton suffered brake pedal problems, dropping down the order before retiring on lap 7 of 57. Looking quickly at the tyre compounds, Norris, Antonelli and Russell were on mediums, Verstappen on softs and Leclerc on hards; Piastri had made the same choice, having dropped to 10th at the start.

Virtual Safety Car: brake issues for Stroll too

On lap 14 of 57, Lance Stroll also suffered problems with his braking system and was unable to return to the pits. The Virtual Safety Car was deployed: Antonelli and Verstappen were called into the pits, rejoining in third and fourth respectively. Norris made his stop just as the VSC ended, unable to take advantage of it and dropping to fifth. Leclerc therefore became the leader.

On lap 20 of 57, the top 10 was: LEC-ANT-VER-RUS-NOR-LAW-PIA-GAS-BOR-COL. There was a Spanish battle between Sainz and Alonso, with the latter suffering front-wing damage; the incident was investigated by the FIA, which handed a five-second penalty to car #55.

Closing laps: Leclerc shines, but the pit stop beckons

Russell pitted on lap 29 of 57, fitting hard tyres. He rejoined in sixth behind Lawson, before passing the New Zealander around lap 36. Meanwhile, Charles Leclerc remained in front, showing solid and competitive pace: the Monegasque was forced to make his stop and pitted on lap 48 of 58, rejoining in fourth. Kimi Antonelli therefore took over the race lead, while behind him Verstappen and Norris were battling for second place.

The chequered flag left no room for doubt: Kimi Antonelli made it two in a row by winning the inaugural race in Madrid, extending his championship lead. Verstappen and Norris joined him on the podium. Leclerc was fourth, unquestionably the star of the race. A superb performance, too, from Franco Colapinto in seventh. Below is the full classification.

He was obviously exaggerating. As mentioned, with this being the circuit’s debut GP, it is only natural for such issues to emerge in the opening days, particularly with the tyres. The track surface is undergoing significant evolution and will probably reach peak performance today, during the race. With temperatures above 50°C, that evolution will be very rapid. Severe and more sudden degradation could emerge during the opening stint; after that, tyre life should begin to stabilise.

Pirelli’s strategic advice - Madring - 57 laps

Before sharing our view on the strategies we will see in today’s race, let us look at the opinion offered by the Pirelli motorsport director after qualifying: “The Soft showed a good level of performance. FP3 was marked by a lengthy interruption, but despite this, the teams managed to assess various strategies regarding the use of the C4. Many lap-time improvements came within the same run.”

“Some overheating issues led to losses in the final sector, but overall the Soft worked very effectively. Qualifying times were half a second quicker than simulations. Some drivers also tackled Q1 on the Medium in order to preserve a set of Softs for the race.” According to the Italian manager, this will lead to “a fairly open scenario on Sunday. A one-stop remains the best option, also considering the difficulty of overtaking and the time that will be lost in the pit lane (around 25 seconds, ed.). A two-stop would become competitive if degradation returns to the levels seen on Friday.”

The best strategies therefore remain: “Medium-Hard and Medium-Hard-Hard, depending on the circumstances. Soft-Hard and Soft-Hard-Hard solutions should be around two seconds slower. The C2 is the most consistent compound, with almost all drivers having saved two sets. The Safety Car or Virtual Safety Car will also play a decisive role in strategy. A factor to take into account,” concluded Marrafuschi.

Perhaps one stop is overly optimistic

New elements bring uncertainties and major headaches. On Friday, Russell was telling us: “Six stops will not be enough,” and now Marrafuschi says: “The best strategy is one stop.” Who is right? Clearly, we do not have a crystal ball and it is difficult to say anything with certainty at the moment.

What we can say is that, in our view, we will see more two-stop approaches, also because of possible Safety Car interventions. Indeed, looking at what happened in Formula 2 and Formula 3, the start will be the most difficult moment of the race, so teams will have to think very carefully about it.

A fairly likely scenario: incidents in the opening laps with the possibility of neutralisations (Safety Car/red flag). Starting on Softs would mean having the chance to use the C4 for only a few laps, take advantage of the neutralisation to fit the first set of C2 Hards, reach around half-distance and fit the second set of white-walled C2s for the final phase: a two-stop strategy. Alternatively, teams could consider starting on Hards, ignore any potential Safety Cars and continue on the starting Hards, aiming to make just one pit stop and fit the C3 Mediums at the end.

In our view, when weighing up the two strategies, the better route is to start on the C4 Soft and then use the two sets of Hards in the subsequent phases. Trying to complete the race with only one stop is too risky. We remain convinced that two stops are more worthwhile. Six is certainly too many, but one may be very optimistic.

Ferrari: perhaps not the best event for experiments

For the Madrid GP, the C3 takes on the role of the yellow-walled Medium. Ferrari, probably given the potential degradation and the problems it has carried over from Austria, will try to do everything possible to avoid using it. But never say never. As a street-circuit round, the Madring GP could also take an unexpected turn and Leclerc or Hamilton may be forced to use it. It would be interesting to assess the SF-26’s race pace again and the progress made by the team in understanding this compound. But, on reflection, this may not be the best event for such tests.

P.S.

We have mainly discussed starting on the C4 Soft because the yellow C3 caused difficulties for many teams on Friday, not just Ferrari. That does not mean nobody will use it; on the contrary... it is certain that we will be caught out by some aspect we have not considered. It could be a particularly interesting GP from a tyre perspective.

In such a tight contest, every detail matters enormously, and an analysis of the telemetry available online can help explain how each driver approached their fastest lap.

The comparison between the two Ferraris is surprising

While acknowledging Norris’s masterclass, it is worth starting with the Ferrari pair, with Hamilton fourth, just six thousandths ahead of Leclerc.

As we know, Hamilton’s SF-26 was fitted with a power unit featuring the ADUO2 upgrades; Leclerc, meanwhile, had to forgo them following his Monza accident and ran the previous specification.

One would expect a significant difference between the two specifications, yet that is not the case.

The differences are minimal, particularly considering that we are theoretically comparing a new ADUO2 unit with Leclerc’s used ADUO1 unit.

Hamilton builds an advantage of almost four tenths through the slow sequence of Turns 1-2 and Turn 5; Leclerc then gradually eats into that advantage all the way to Turn 22, the final corner, and at every stage of this driven section he appears able to accelerate harder, perhaps thanks to a fuller battery than the Briton.

It can be said that the two drivers are evenly matched and, in a sense, so are their cars.
This raises doubts over the expected tenth-and-a-half that Ferrari’s new engine could have given Leclerc, putting him in contention for pole.

Superb Norris takes pole despite the error

Norris’s pole position now deserves proper attention.

McLaren’s strategy with the World Champion is clear: maximise the available energy on the run after the first corner, then rely on the MCL40’s considerable chassis strengths for the rest of the lap.
The difference in energy deployment in the opening phase is striking, unlike what was seen between the two Ferraris in the previous comparison.

From there, Norris builds his advantage over Antonelli corner by corner in a linear fashion and, before the final right-hander, his margin stands at 373 thousandths.
At that point, the Briton made the error that he himself admitted over the radio.
Although he and Antonelli brake at virtually the same point, the Mercedes driver’s acceleration is clearly more immediate and progressive than the Briton’s more abrupt return to the throttle, evidence of a mistake.
The Briton in fact lost the rear right at the end of the lap, brushing the wall.

Where does Ferrari stand?

Comparing Hamilton’s lap with the pole lap helps us understand where Ferrari stands.

Hamilton deploys a great deal of energy on the pit straight but, after Turns 1-2, as already noted, McLaren responds emphatically and the gap grows to around two and a half tenths by the end of the first sector.
From that point, McLaren and Norris build their advantage steadily to four and a half tenths, particularly between Turns 13 and 20.

The MCL40 is superior not only through the two right-handers but also under acceleration, perhaps indicating greater energy availability at the end of the lap, which penalises the SF-26.
At Turn 19, Norris is up to 8 km/h faster than Hamilton despite no obvious mistake from the Ferrari driver, evidence of the excellent work done by the Woking technicians on a car carrying a great deal of aerodynamic downforce.
The exceptions, however, are the "Monumental", where Hamilton appears considerably more effective with equal throttle application and engine revs, and naturally the final corner, characterised by Norris’s error already mentioned.

Source www.gp-tempo.com

McLaren once again made the difference on a technical, narrow and ''slow'' circuit. Lando Norris claimed his third pole position of the season and tomorrow, after his wins in Hungary and the Netherlands, will attempt to beat Antonelli and repeat that result. This type of circuit, however, proves difficult for Ferrari, who also lost out to Verstappen's Red Bull . Hamilton and Leclerc will start fourth and fifth.

Madrid GP starting grid - Start at 15:00

A new circuit means plenty for the drivers to learn. The FIA certainly had a busy post-qualifying session, but ultimately issued just one penalty: Sainz (Williams) was handed a three-place grid drop for impeding Bottas (Cadillac) in Q1. Otherwise, there will be no major changes to the grid. Apart from Stroll , who will start from last place after replacing every component of the power unit.

It will nevertheless be a very sad Grand Prix for the home drivers and their fans. Seeing Alonso and Sainz start from the back does not do the drivers in question justice.

The formation lap for the Spanish Grand Prix is scheduled for tomorrow, 13 September, at 15:00 local time.

Why are we referring to a provisional grid? Because team technicians could still identify issues with the cars before tomorrow's race and, should the replacement of a component subject to regulatory restrictions become necessary, the Federation would be forced to drop the driver concerned several places on the grid.

P.S.: Our website always features updated standings at the end of every session.

Cover photo by Luca Martini / WHYOUT Images

Inside photo: FIA

The difficulties of the first edition

Clearly, it must be given time: this is only the event's first edition and, as always, there are issues to resolve. However, the first areas requiring attention undoubtedly concern the organisation of car recovery following incidents and the speed at which the circuit is made safe. In the incident involving Lewis, the Madring may even have set a record. The marshals took more than 30 minutes to restore the Tecpro barriers, despite the impact being purely head-on and the driver even attempting to return to the pits. It did not appear to be a particularly demanding task.

This evening, by way of comparison, there was a major accident during the Formula 3 Feature Race (cover image and image below), one of the two races scheduled this weekend for the season finale. Paradoxically, despite the number of cars involved, the marshals were fairly swift on that occasion. The recovery operation lasted just under 30 minutes: an appropriate time, given the scale of the accident.

What is probably lacking is adequate equipment around the circuit. Not every section is properly supplied. In some respects, it is a similar situation to that seen in the very early editions in Azerbaijan.

The FIA will have much to analyse after the weekend

Comparing the Madring with Monte Carlo would therefore be wrong. The Monaco GP is certainly the benchmark in terms of organisation and track safety. The Madrid circuit could be regarded as somewhere between Baku and Macau. The Guia Circuit is considered one of the most dangerous venues still hosting motor racing events. The Madring is far from that level, but the section between Turn 6 and Turn 10 is very narrow, with sudden changes of direction which, as seen earlier in Formula 3, can lead to serious incidents, especially at the start.

The FIA will need to carry out a very thorough post-GP review of safety, management and the organisation of track personnel in the event of an accident. This is, after all, the debut of a new street circuit… Let us give it time.

Image below: X, F3; Cover image: X, F3.

What emerged from this PL2 session is that there are not many places to overtake and, if you end up behind another car, the situation quickly becomes rather complicated. Leclerc demonstrated this: despite beginning his race pace simulation with an attacking lap time on a par with Verstappen, he was then unable to maintain a consistent and competitive pace.

Traffic and degradation spoil the simulations

Traffic was an issue for everyone today, to varying degrees. Oscar Piastri was too slow, while Max Verstappen was far too inconsistent. Lando Norris (McLaren), meanwhile, was absent, held in his garage by a technical problem. Max's Red Bull team-mate Liam Lawson (standing in temporarily for Isack Hadjar) completed just one lap, probably also because of the red flag triggered by Arvid Lindblad (VCARB), who had been doing an excellent job up to that point.

There was then also a great deal of degradation, although this could be a natural factor at a new circuit. The green track surface and all the categories completing their first laps: it is normal for there to be degradation, at least today. Tomorrow's picture will certainly be far more indicative of what we can expect on Sunday.

Uncertain data after a chaotic opening day

That said, Russell and Verstappen were undoubtedly the fastest. George was not only quick but also very consistent, while Max had moments of weakness. What is concerning about the Red Bull's race pace is that it matched Russell's pace on the Softs.

Today's session was nevertheless very chaotic and not easy to interpret. What we can say is that Mercedes and Red Bull look very strong, but McLaren, expected to improve tomorrow, will need to be watched closely. A response from Ferrari is expected.

The C3 Medium appeared to cause problems for everyone. At present, opting for Softs and Hards does not seem a bad strategic idea.

Cover photo by Luca Martini / WHYOUT Images

Lap time and speed profile

The simulation produced a lap time of 1:32.816, with an average lap speed of 210.1 km/h. The estimated top speed is 321.4 km/h, reached 1,094 metres from the start-finish line, at the end of the T3→T4 straight. The lowest speed recorded was 78.7 km/h at Turn 6. The three sector times are 30.579 / 33.576 / 28.661 seconds. Madring features a 600-metre flat-out section between T3 and T4, where the single-seaters will use Straight Line Mode, a highly technical central section, and the section including the flat-out Monumental corner. These three very different segments will require a complex energy strategy.Figure 1 — Energy state during the lap. Green = active power, no recovery (activation and operation only with the internal combustion engine). Red = recovery from a driver lift or braking. Orange = superclipping under acceleration, used only once on this lap, in the T15–T16 sector under FIA regulation C5.12.4.Figure 2 — Modelled speed as a function of distance. The shaded bands represent the two published Straight-Mode zones; the vertical dashed lines indicate the official sector boundaries. This is the solver’s raw output on a 2.0m grid, with no smoothing applied.

MGU-K deployment and recovery

Over the course of a lap, 8.779 MJ is used and 5.142 MJ recovered. The car spends 7.06 seconds at full power, using the 350 kW permitted by the C5.2.8 overtake curve, over a distance of 388 m, and a further 33.30 seconds at partial power. 18.98 seconds of the lap (1,206 m) are covered using the internal combustion engine (ICE) alone.Figure 3 – Energy distribution and recovery modes

Energy recovery comes from 2.969 MJ under braking, 1.623 MJ from eight lift-and-coast events and 0.550 MJ from superclipping. Lift-and-coast is necessary, as without it the lap time would be 93.3544 seconds. Frustrating though it may be, the technique enables greater efficiency over the lap.

Figure 4 — Energy recovery by type and area, and the three recharge quantities against the FIA’s maximum limit.

Battery state of charge

The car crosses the line with 4.00 MJ available, reaches a minimum of 0.098 MJ and ends the lap with 0.362 MJ. The power unit remains at that minimum for 5.06 seconds in the segment between Turns 13 and 15.

Figure 5 — State of charge over a lap.

Energy strategy at the Monumental corner

The management of electrical power through the “Monumental” corner is particularly interesting. Over the section from 2,401.03 to 2,948.03 metres (547 m), according to our simulation, the single-seaters enter at 269.9 km/h and exit at 268.9 km/h, with the MGU-K contributing 0.4296 MJ. Power deployment is reduced at 2,586 metres from the start-finish line, after which 66.1% of the segment is covered using the internal combustion engine alone. This is not a complete depletion of power: taking away that energy and using it on the main straight costs 0.146 seconds, so partial power use through the corner is in fact more advantageous than the top speed that could be gained.

Figure 6 — The Monumental. Speed, power and state of charge in the banked section.

Cornering speeds

The estimated top speed requires clarification. The single-seaters are capable of exceeding the simulated 321.4 km/h. By using the full 350 kW on the T3→T4 straight, they can reach 337.7 km/h. However, the assumed speed represents the most energy-efficient approach to setting the best time at the brand-new circuit in the Spanish capital. The following illustration shows the speeds through the 22 corners of the Spanish track.

Figure 7 — Minimum speed at each of the 22 official corners, with entry and exit indicated by a range and the energy state shown below.

After the start, the race was stopped following the heavy crash involving Charles Leclerc at Parabolica. After the red flag was shown, allowing the Ferrari to be removed and the barriers repaired, the race resumed only after around 35 minutes.

The delay did not go unnoticed. Today, TecPro Barriers, a leading manufacturer of safety barriers also used at several other circuits on the World Championship calendar, criticised the Temple of Speed over the time taken to repair the tyre barrier damaged in the crash.

Unlike at other circuits such as Jeddah, Baku, Las Vegas or the brand-new Madring, at Monza TecPro barriers, where present, are used only at a handful of specific points, with other areas of the iconic layout protected solely by guardrails or tyre stacks, as was the case at Parabolica. Although the latter method absorbs impacts, it is nevertheless very outdated and not entirely safe, especially at certain speeds.

Another weakness is the time required for a potential replacement. TecPro Barriers therefore seized the opportunity to criticise the choice made by the Brianza circuit, writing on LinkedIn: "35 minutes to rebuild a tyre barrier. That was the cost of the red flag at Monza".

"On lap two, Leclerc went off at Parabolica. He escaped unhurt, and that is what matters, but then the field had to wait almost 40 minutes while a dislodged tyre barrier was rebuilt, row by row".

"With #TecProBarriers, damaged modules are disconnected, replaced with spares at trackside, and protection is restored in just a few minutes. The same protection for the driver, but very little downtime for the race, the broadcaster and the fans".

"Safety first, always. But when the next major accident happens, how quickly will you want to get racing again?".

According to Brembo engineers, who work closely with every Formula 1 team, the 5,416-metre new Spanish circuit ranks among the most demanding for the braking system, with a difficulty rating of 4 on a scale of 1 to 5.

Over a lap, drivers use the brakes at eight points for a total of 14.2 seconds. Five braking zones are classified as Hard, two as Medium and just one as Light. This offers a clear picture of a track featuring 22 corners, with very few sections in which the cars can remain at full throttle for long.

The most demanding braking zone

According to Brembo simulations, the toughest point for the braking system will be the first corner after the finish line. The cars will arrive at around 294 km/h before slowing to 137 km/h.

The deceleration will last 1.8 seconds and take place over 99 metres. During this phase, drivers will have to apply a load of 135 kg to the brake pedal, reaching a deceleration of 4.3g. Braking power will reach 1,782 kW.

Energy management

While Monza was one of the most challenging circuits of the season from an energy perspective, Madrid presents an almost opposite scenario. At the Italian circuit, the very long straights and limited braking zones greatly reduced recovery opportunities, whereas the Madring's 22 corners, constant decelerations and numerous partial-throttle sections will allow the MGU-K to recover energy more consistently.

The limits set by the FIA confirm this. Maximum Recharge per Lap will be 7.5 MJ in qualifying, rising to 8.5 MJ in the race with Overtake inactive and 9.0 MJ when the system can be used. In free practice, the limit will again be 9.0 MJ.

The comparison with Monza is significant: one week ago, the FIA set just 5.0 MJ in qualifying and 7.0 MJ in the race, rising to 7.5 with Overtake. In Madrid, then, the issue will not be finding energy to recover, but deciding where and how to use it over an extremely fragmented lap.

The FIA has also set the Power Limited Distance at 3,206 metres, with a maximum power reduction limit of 100 kW/s. Specific windows are also provided for qualifying and Sprint Qualifying, in which the power unit's power reduction may reach up to 350 kW: between Turns 15 and 16, between Turns 18 and 19, between Turns 20 and 21, and on the exit of Turn 22.

Madrid will not produce the energy paradoxes of the new regulations, and the main unknown at the Madring will above all be the circuit itself. It is a completely new, narrow track, full of chicanes and without any genuine reference points, further distinguished by its banked sections. Finding the right line and understanding how much to exploit the banking could become one of the decisive themes of the weekend.

Madrid GP 2026: complete guide

This is the third of six in-depth features regularly published on formula1.it to guide readers through the build-up to each race weekend. Alongside Brembo's analysis of braking and energy management, they cover Pirelli's analysis and information, the event's TV and streaming schedule, official updates, the first images and set-ups from the pit lane, as well as a table of the power unit components used.

Overall, the Prancing Horse’s single-seater has an excellent chassis, but it must contend with an underperforming engine – several heads have already rolled in the Power Unit department, and more will follow. During the Italian weekend, it displayed its already familiar deficit to Mercedes and Red Bull-Ford, but it must not be forgotten that Monza exaggerates characteristics that carry far less weight elsewhere.

ADUO-2 performs as expected

The anticipated upgrade introduced on Ferrari’s power unit worked, but it should be stressed that nobody within the team expected miracles, as Vasseur repeatedly stated in the preceding weeks, and as Leclerc also said immediately after qualifying.

The concerns also emerged in Hamilton’s decision not to pit under the Virtual Safety Car. Despite the Briton’s repeated radio complaints about his lack of feeling with the hard tyre, the Ferrari pit wall opted not to bring the #44 in through fear that he would then be unable to make the overtakes needed to regain his position.

Is driver management becoming a problem?

Another issue that sparked discussion in the days after the Italian Grand Prix was the moment of impasse between Ferrari’s two drivers in the opening metres of the race, when Hamilton moved aggressively on Leclerc (though without doing anything improper). The Monegasque could have taken a tighter line into Turn 2, avoiding forcing his team-mate into the gravel.

The key point is this: Vasseur has so far placed complete trust in the professionalism of his drivers, avoiding any particular intervention, but there is a sense that the situation is gradually getting out of hand.

Another déjà vu for Leclerc

At Ferrari, it was undoubtedly Leclerc who endured the more difficult Sunday, with his race lasting fewer than two laps because of a heavy crash at the Parabolica. The impact, of more than 50G, came after he attempted to resist Oscar Piastri’s overtake while holding a less-than-ideal line; once the #16 SF-26 touched the drainage grate, it bounced and lost the rear.

Frustration was certainly already at a considerable level at that point, given the earlier difficulties Ferrari had faced in trying to defend first from Gasly and then Verstappen. Leclerc therefore tried to push beyond the limit, as he has often been able to do – and sometimes brilliantly – during his Formula 1 career.

The fact that he has never had a genuinely competitive car at his disposal undoubtedly continues to play a significant subconscious role, but that can no longer justify throwing away points in this manner for a driver of his calibre who, in addition to his immense talent, now possesses considerable experience.

Cover photo pbs.twimg.com

Image pbs.twimg.com

Image pbs.twimg.com

History is full of internal rivalries that became legendary: Senna and Prost at McLaren, Mansell and Piquet at Williams, Alonso and Hamilton again at McLaren, Hamilton and Rosberg at Mercedes, right through to Norris and Piastri. Such rivalries are natural when both drivers are fighting for the World Championship, but less understandable when the clashes chiefly risk hurting the team—and unfortunately, the latter scenario is the most fitting description of Ferrari in recent years, far from the top and at the centre of countless controversies. Often at the heart of those discussions is the “Predestined One”, Charles Leclerc: tensions with Vettel, Sainz and now Hamilton.

Charles is an extraordinary talent, deeply loves Ferrari and his desire always to get the most from every opportunity has delivered thrilling performances and memorable victories. That same trait, however, has at times led him to demand more than the car can give, resulting in costly errors for both him and the team.

The 2026 season captures this situation well. Leclerc has recorded more accident-related retirements than podiums, is far from the front and is now out of the title fight. Hamilton, despite making mistakes of his own, has generally made better use of his opportunities and remains in contention for something significant.

Monza encapsulated it all in just a few corners. Lewis found room at the first corner, Charles did not accept the overtake and forced him off track, costing him positions. Shortly afterwards, Leclerc made another mistake, crashing heavily into the barriers while once again trying to extract something more from the Ferrari.

The reaction was fierce. That is why we asked our readers one very simple question: “Should Leclerc accept the role of second driver?”

More than 1,500 comments

The question generated a huge debate: 1,544 contributions were analysed, including 1,056 direct comments on the post and 488 replies between users. The discussion soon broadened from driver hierarchy to the responsibilities of Leclerc, Hamilton, Vasseur and Ferrari itself. Before examining the responses in detail, we believe it is right to show readers’ overall sentiment in the current context.

The first figure is clear: 58.3% of comments are negative towards Leclerc. Among top-level comments alone—those more directly linked to the original question—the figure rises to 61.9%.

But beware: “negative” does not automatically mean being in favour of Leclerc becoming the second driver. Some criticise the Monegasque heavily while also believing it would be wrong to establish a hierarchy.

Second driver? “No” wins

Among the 1,056 direct comments, we isolated the explicit and immediately recognisable answers: “yes”, “certainly”, “obviously” on one side; “no”, “absolutely not”, “never” on the other. There were 243 such contributions, the sample least open to interpretation.

Among those answering without hesitation, then, two readers out of three say no: Leclerc should not formally be considered Ferrari’s second driver.

The result becomes less clear-cut, however, when more detailed arguments are also analysed. Of the 484 contributions focused primarily on Ferrari’s hierarchy, around 343 expressed a sufficiently clear position: the estimate is roughly 56% opposed and 44% in favour. “No” remains ahead, but the divide is less pronounced.

Many readers therefore reject the second-driver label, or do not see it as decisive in solving the problem, but that does not mean they absolve Leclerc. The Monegasque is being asked for greater discipline, more collaboration with Hamilton and, above all, the ability to recognise when the race situation requires Ferrari’s result to take priority over a personal battle.

Leclerc divides the fans

On one side are those who still regard Charles as Ferrari’s reference point and point out that he has never had a car capable of consistently fighting for the World Championship. On the other, there is a growing group questioning the “Predestined One”, including those who would like to see him away from Maranello. Curiously, others reach the same conclusion for the opposite reason: Leclerc should leave Ferrari in order finally to find a competitive car.

The issue is not the label

In the end, the readers’ answer is fairly clear: the majority do not want Leclerc as the second driver, but a very substantial proportion believe the situation nonetheless requires priorities in Hamilton’s favour.

The real issue, therefore, appears to be less about the label and more about behaviour on track. Nobody is asking Charles to stop being quick, aggressive or ambitious. But when his personal season or race is already compromised and his team-mate can still fight for something important, many fans expect one thing above all: put Ferrari ahead of the internal battle.

Cover photo by Luca Martini / WHYOUT Images

It is far from an ideal prospect, especially considering that Russell himself will now have to serve the same penalty (most likely in Baku) for taking his fifth Power Unit. Add Antonelli's incredible run of form and the fact that the King's Lynn native has not won since the Austrian GP at the end of June, and while the title chase is still possible, plans after Monza will certainly need to be revised.

This is not Formula 1

The most unpleasant episode, however, came immediately after the race, when Russell was met with a chorus of boos as he stepped onto the podium: behaviour that must be condemned, and which runs completely counter to the values not only of motorsport and Formula 1, but of sport in general.

Fans may be disappointed by a Ferrari performance that failed to live up to expectations, but frustration must not turn into disrespect. Too often, people forget that beneath the helmet — however much they may seem like invincible superheroes to us — are perfectly ordinary young men with all their emotions.

Seeing passion turn into hatred leaves a very bitter taste. There is a line that should never be crossed; none of this has anything to do with supporting a team.

Cover photo pbs.twimg.com

Internal photo pbs.twimg.com

Ferrari close, yet still a long way off

Ferrari were close, 218 thousandths behind, but still a long way off. The major deficit of the engine built in Maranello is particularly evident on the straights (read the telemetry data here). Equally close, as the third force, was the Red Bull-Ford power unit, which placed both Red Bull and VCARB in pursuit.

According to the FIA document, the Austrians have the best ICE on the grid and, at Monza, that was reflected in Max Verstappen’s third place in the race and Racing Bulls’ double points finish. All things considered, ending up 284 thousandths off the pace at a circuit like Monza could even be satisfactory; unfortunately, the Dutch champion is not one to settle for scraps…

The unpredictability created by Antonelli’s absence

Pole position went to Gasly, who delivered a superb performance, but it should be remembered that Andrea Kimi Antonelli, the championship leader, who then fought back from P19 to win his home GP, made no attempt whatsoever to deliver a great Q3 performance because of the grid penalty he would have had to serve. Most likely, had he too been able to show the potential of his power unit, we would be discussing a different scenario.

[[[og]]]

Leaving aside the aforementioned teams, Williams managed to claw back some ground compared with Zandvoort, as did Cadillac and Haas, who did a better job than on the slower circuits. Audi lost a little, but nothing alarming, while Aston Martin struggled somewhat again, with the gap rising from the three seconds suffered in the Netherlands to the 3.364 seconds conceded by Alonso in Italy.

Cover and internal photos by Luca Martini / WHYOUT Images

Marco, you often follow Kimi to Grands Prix: how do you choose which races to attend?

"Let’s say Kimi is in good hands. He is part of the Mercedes family, it is as if we were there. I am relaxed. I have a team active in motorsport, so I have to strike the usual balance. I feel confident that, at this stage, Kimi can manage on his own too".

Is Mercedes like a second family?

"Absolutely. I am extremely reassured to know he is at the track with the Mercedes family; I know he is in safe hands".

Did your work in motorsport influence Kimi’s decision to become a driver?

"Kimi was practically born in the garages. When he was in his mother’s womb, we were racing in the WTCC at Magny-Cours and he would kick whenever he heard the cars being started. It had an effect on him. Then, obviously, he showed that he had this passion and, even if we may have had an influence, it was then his choice, not ours".

You were also a driver: do you see yourself in Kimi?

"No, he is faster than me (laughs, ed.). We belong to two different eras. Back then, we were drivers with the knife between our teeth, going all-in into corners and banging wheels. Motorsport is different now. But he has always been combative; that is where I see myself in him".

Has your role alongside Kimi at Grands Prix changed over time, or has your support as a father remained the same?

"At most, I can give my opinion if I see something that I believe is not right, but he must always assess it and discuss it with the engineers, with Bono (Peter Bonnington, ed.). At most, I can have my say as someone who has lived in motorsport for years. But everything has to be verified. I want to be alongside Kimi because if things go well, we celebrate together, but also to be there for him if things do not go well".

Do you think Kimi is surprising people, or was this the progress you expected?

"I have to say that Toto Wolff believed in Kimi’s progress more than I did. As a father, I am not overly biased; I have always been a little sceptical about my son’s potential because you are always afraid that he will not be as strong as he should be. I am always very cautious when making comments".

But things are going well...

"Kimi is doing well, but I think he still has to grow: in one year of F1, you cannot learn what the others, his rivals, have learned in eight or 10 years".

He is leading the F1 world championship and you think he still has room to grow?

"I think he still has a lot to learn, and I think he can do that over the next few years. He will need time; that is normal. I think he will be truly ready in a few years".

You and Toto Wolff have always been certain of Kimi’s strength, even in the face of criticism and difficulties. Was it difficult to manage those moments?

"When you are in a position like Kimi was last year, in the spotlight, as a rookie in a team like Mercedes, following Lewis Hamilton and under a great deal of pressure, you always have many doubts or criticisms. You wonder whether you will be able to do it or not. In his journey, he had negative moments, but that is part of the early stages, especially in those circumstances".

A difficult phase that required great mental strength to come through...

"I always thought he could come through it. I always thought he could do well. Let’s say the difficult moments were only a passing phase".

What do you think of Toto Wolff’s work with Kimi?

"Toto is a great man. Both for being where he is and for what he has done in his life. He is a great man. A balanced person, a measured man with experience, and he is also a family man. We could not have ended up any better".

What do you think is Kimi’s secret?

"Kimi is a normal lad, who goes bowling with his friends and goes to the pub. He is someone who wants to be around other people, have fun and not think only about F1. He knows it is his job and treats it as such. It is as if he had to drive a bus, except he drives an F1 car. He is a lad like everyone else. He wants to spend time with his friends and do what all boys his age do. Perhaps his strength is precisely his normality".

“FRAGILE is a very particular trophy,” Andrea Kimi Antonelli described it on Thursday, during the day set aside for interviews. It was born from the creative vision of Vedovamazzei, the artistic duo comprising Stella Sala and Simeone Crispino, founded in Naples in 1991. Pirelli welcomed the artists into its motorhome, giving them the opportunity to present their work to the media who had come to cover the event, including us at Formula1.it.

The trophy is simply a collection of kitchen objects, stacked on top of one another in a kind of precarious balance that symbolises the fragility of victory.

The concept of FRAGILE victory that fascinated Antonelli

Italian driver Andrea Kimi Antonelli did not know the idea behind the trophy’s design, and on Thursday this aspect greatly excited him. Unfortunately, starting from 19th place, he believed it would be very difficult to lift the trophy. Instead, having shown pace that was beyond anyone else, he delivered a display of pure dominance on Sunday, climbing to the top step of the podium and claiming the most important trophy of the entire event.

The trophy symbolises the fragility of victory, but there was little or nothing fragile about Kimi’s triumph. After 15-16 laps, he was already battling Verstappen and Russell for the race lead. He also managed to beat his team-mate, getting the strategy right and outclassing him in every respect (a shame, given that George may well have delivered his best performance of the season, read here).

The moment Antonelli may have felt FRAGILE closest

Perhaps the only moment when the victory was in doubt came a few laps from the finish, when Kimi decided to attack his team-mate a little too optimistically and ended up in the gravel at the exit of the Prima Variante. Despite making a mistake, Antonelli remained composed: he let the car slide across the stones and returned to the track, quickly managing to catch and decisively overtake his garage-mate.

Who knows whether the Italian thought of the trophy and the fragility of victory at that moment. A single lapse of concentration, in an otherwise perfect race, could have undone all the work he had put in up to that point.

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

It was the DAMS driver’s first victory in the category, as well as the first ever by an Italian at Monza in Formula 3. At Formula1.it, we had the opportunity to speak with Nicola and, discussing that success, asked him how he felt after crossing the line and how important the fans were, having turned out in large numbers from Thursday’s fan zone, when he and the other junior-category protagonists took to the stage for the customary interviews.

“Taking my first win at Monza was a special emotion because, after all the work we have done together with the team over these two years, during which we struggled, the results have finally come. And, as I said, achieving it here at Monza was special because I was the first Italian to win in Formula 3 at home.”

Continuing, the Tuscan added: “As for the fans, from Thursday, when we were in the fan zone, they made themselves heard, making me feel at home and giving me so much support.”

At Monza, as had already happened in Monte Carlo, the 30-driver grid was split into two groups in order to prevent incidents or simply traffic from affecting the most important session of the weekend. The regulations therefore stipulated that the fastest driver from the two groups would start from pole, with the other members of that group lining up behind him on the same side of the grid, while the 15 drivers from the other group occupied the alternating slots.

After the allotted 10 minutes, Lacorte finished second in his group behind pole-sitter Freddie Slater, securing third overall. Looking back at Friday, Nicola explained: “Qualifying was a good starting point because in these categories there are few laps to adapt. For example, in qualifying we only had one push lap. Nevertheless, I managed to stay up at the front and be competitive from free practice onwards.”

Turning his attention to Saturday’s race, he said: “The Sprint, rather than being difficult, was a race to manage so as not to risk penalties or incidents before the more important race, while the Feature was an all-in for me, where I gave practically everything I had left because I knew how important it was to start up front and how many points were at stake for the championship.”

Going into more detail, he added: “As I said, the Sprint was a matter of using my head. I was much more conservative and tried to gather as much data as possible without making mistakes or having incidents that would have compromised the Feature. This choice was crucial because, with the team, we understood some things, including the start, which was important and allowed me to be fighting for the top positions straight away on Sunday, whereas it had been a problem on Saturday that we then managed to solve.”

“It was very useful to manage everything in this way, working intelligently during the Sprint to get the most out of Sunday’s main race.”

Racing at home, with the backing of the fans, can provide that extra boost capable of making the difference. Returning to that subject, the Tuscan wanted to thank everyone: “The fans made themselves heard throughout the weekend. It was very nice to be able to hear them, see them and be close to them in the fan zone on Thursday. That was when I really understood how much they support us, even though we are still in junior categories such as Formula 2 or Formula 3. They already believe in us and support us as if we were in F1. All of this gave me a special boost for my performance in general and, honestly, it is not only about racing at home: it is the people who make you feel at home.”

Despite his victory only a few days ago, there is no time to rest. Formula 3 will return to action this weekend for the final round of the season in Madrid, where the 2026 championship title will also be decided.

Looking ahead to the weekend, Lacorte offered further details on the circuit: “Madrid is a very particular, difficult track and new to everyone. Testing did not go as we wanted, so I expect there will be a lot of work to do. The goal will be the usual one: to do the best possible. I did not arrive at Monza thinking about winning; I only wanted to do my best from the first lap of free practice. I will therefore use the same mentality in Spain, starting strongly and then continuing to improve in qualifying and the races.”

“I think this is really crucial in Formula 3, especially given the very little track time available to us. You always have to set yourself small targets, without expecting everything straight away, and I will work as hard as possible to get the best out of Madrid too.”

We thank Nicola Lacorte for his courtesy and availability during the interview, as well as Gianpaolo Matteucci for his support in making it possible. Partial reproduction of this exclusive interview is permitted provided the author (Giuseppe Cianci) and Formula1.it are credited, with a link to the original content.

Leclerc is expected to drive the SF-26 as usual in the first free practice session at the new Madrid circuit, but his participation for the remainder of the weekend is not yet completely guaranteed. Ferrari wants to assess his physical condition first-hand in the car, and above all how he feels after the heavy forces sustained in the impact with the barriers at Parabolica.

The crash occurred in the very early stages of the Italian Grand Prix, when Charles lost control of the Ferrari at high speed and hit the barriers heavily, prompting a red flag. Leclerc climbed out of the cockpit unaided and initial checks revealed no serious consequences.

Greater concern, however, came from the symptoms described by the driver himself after leaving the medical centre. Leclerc explained that he had suffered a temporary problem with his vision, particularly in his right eye, immediately after the impact. The situation then quickly returned to normal, but the Monegasque had already indicated that he would need further checks before Madrid.

Subsequent examinations are understood to have been reassuring, but Maranello is understandably unwilling to take any risks. The definitive test will therefore come in the cockpit: Leclerc is expected to take part in FP1, and only after that session will Ferrari be able to assess whether the driver is genuinely fit to complete the entire Madrid weekend without issue.

It is for precisely this possibility that Giovinazzi has reportedly been placed on standby. The Italian arrives directly from the United States, where on Sunday he contested the Lone Star Le Mans alongside Alessandro Pier Guidi and James Calado at the wheel of the #51 Ferrari 499P. The weekend began in the best possible way, with Giovinazzi claiming pole position in Hyperpole on exactly the same time as Jack Aitken's Cadillac, taking first place because he set the lap time first.

The race then took a decidedly less fortunate turn. After leading in the early stages, the #51 was compromised by several incidents and, above all, the timing of the final Safety Car, finishing only in 11th place at Austin, while the sister #50 of Fuoco, Molina and Nielsen took victory.

Giovinazzi could therefore switch from the 499P to the SF-26 within a matter of days, but for now this is merely a precaution. Ferrari expects to field Leclerc throughout the Spanish weekend, but has already identified an alternative solution should the Monegasque's feelings during the opening practice session suggest that greater caution is required.

The managerial vacuum paves the way for an internal feud

This is not intended as a lesson in management style, yet it is clear that those in charge of the historic Modena-based team, led by Frederic Vasseur, are at the mercy of the internal feud between Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc. What happened between the two Ferrari standard-bearers at the first chicane was not a racing incident. It would be foolish to classify it as one. The seven-time world champion’s renewed competitiveness has reignited the belief that he could be the man of destiny capable of returning Ferrari to the top of the world. In that respect, the Anglo-Caribbean star has often stressed how hard he is pushing to improve many aspects that go far beyond his role as a driver. Through inability or impossibility, Ferrari has opted to play as a team by not issuing team orders when the situation was still open. It is an approach that is proving costly both on sporting and human levels, because the relationship between the two drivers is now at rock bottom. Formula 1 is cruel, but success requires ruthlessness. If you do not have the best car in the field, the only option is to maximise the team’s overall result, and that objective often comes at the expense of one driver’s ambitions. Rather than a “free to race” policy, the impression is one of excessive deference when it comes to giving drivers clear instructions. In a context without rules of engagement, anything goes for these driving aces. Hamilton intends to make his better championship position count, while Leclerc has no intention of giving an inch in the hope of closing the gap to his team-mate. The result is there for all to see, and it is embarrassing. We have often seen team-mates banging wheels, especially when fighting for the title, but at Monza the stakes, with hindsight, were truly meagre.

Vasseur and improvised reprimands

Vasseur referred to McLaren’s management last season after the race: “As for any potential team orders, I think last year is a good comparison. At this point in the season Oscar Piastri was ahead within McLaren and, if McLaren had put everything behind Piastri, Max Verstappen would probably have become champion. It is clear that at some point you have to make a decision, but I think before Monza it was still too early to do so. Now we have time to discuss it with the guys.” Is it not already too late to speak to the drivers? Is it possible that there are no codified rules of engagement that drivers must follow strictly, and that the team instead has to resort to improvised reprimands? At this point, it is fair to ask whether Ferrari are capable of managing two drivers who both aspire to be the leading man, especially when one man’s ambitions need to be curbed for the supreme good of the team.