ROUND 13 RESULTS | MONZA | ITALY | FORMULA 1

 

F1 DRIVER DEVELOPING 'WORST REPUTATION' ON THE GRID OVER HIS BEHAVIOUR SO FAR THIS SEASON

Carlos Sainz's obstruction of Oscar Piastri at the 2026 Hungarian Grand Prix has only deepened the frustration surrounding the Williams F1 driver, further damaging his standing among rivals who already viewed him with serious scepticism.

James Vowles, Team Principal of Williams Racing, isn’t putting the Hungarian Grand Prix collision solely on Sainz. Instead, he’s pointing to a broken blue‑flag system, unclear team messaging, and Fernando Alonso’s refusal to yield.

Piastri - who lost the lead because of the contact - blasted Sainz as an “idiot” and later called the move “the dumbest thing” he’d ever seen.

Sainz took a five-second penalty for the contact, while Piastri later retired for an unrelated reason.

Onboard footage shows Sainz driving past several flashing blue lights and being overtaken twice by Alonso seconds before the crash. Vowles says the Spaniard should have moved aside earlier, and admits Williams didn’t warn their driver at the right moment. Stewards still held him fully responsible, however, but issued a reduced penalty due to limited visibility.

What's Been Said About Carlos Sainz

Nate Saunders, a senior Formula 1 writer and journalist for ESPN, said: "It's hard to ignore the cloud over Sainz going into the break following his collision with Piastri in Hungary.

"Piastri called it 'one of the dumbest things I've ever seen on a racetrack,' and given Sainz's intelligence and experience, it's hard to disagree.

"Worst of all is that Sainz seems to be a repeat offender; he stayed on the racing line while being shown blue flags as the race leader Leclerc approached at the British Grand Prix, and he's becoming known among his peers for being one of the worst for blocking in practice, too. That all might be more forgivable for a rookie, but this is Sainz's 12th season in F1."

The Lap 39 incident stripped Piastri of the lead, paving the way for Lando Norris to inherit the position and secure victory. The Australian branded Sainz’s collision with him in Hungary as “unacceptable,” adding that he ought to “look in the mirror” considering how often he’s criticised fellow drivers.

"Two problems took place," Vowles said. "That flag system just wasn't working. In fact, at one point, we were just operating with marshals doing their best, but waving blue flags, and it's a very difficult thing for marshals to do; they don't know when the cars are coming by and trigger that.

"What happened is he took an opportunity to go inside of Carlos into turn one. So, at that stage, Carlos then became the car behind, and when you do have a number of marshal posts to therefore give up position. However, on the run down turn two, Carlos was back ahead now, so the car behind is Fernando, again with the light boards."

Vowles clarified that there was no effort to impede Piastri, noting that a different car behind them should have yielded before they did.

- Cody Marmon

FORMULA 1 DRIVER STANDINGS | POINTS AFTER HUNGARIAN GRAND PRIX 2026

 

'TOO COMPLICATED' - CAN F1 DRIVERS REGAIN CONTROL FROM AI ENGINES?

 

The key theme among drivers in the build-up to Formula 1’s Hungarian Grand Prix so far has been concerns about how much results in 2026 are out of their hands. 

Last weekend’s Belgian Grand Prix exposed how forward-thinking algorithms that dictate where and when energy should be deployed are causing frustration among the majority of drivers. 

It led to baffling straightline speed deficits between identical cars and drivers feeling like what the algorithm decided was a key factor in deciding qualifying and the race.

Oscar Piastri complained at Spa that when qualifying is being “decided by computers behaving or misbehaving, it's a pretty crap way of going racing.” 

Asked in Hungary if it “sometimes feels like you’re the passenger of an AI programme that still has to be trained?”, Piastri replied: “Sometimes, yes. At a track like Spa or a track like Silverstone, it’s going to be worse. 

“Here [at the Hungaroring], I really don’t expect there to be many problems at all with that kind of thing, because the straights are so much shorter, so even if there are differences, they should be a lot less. 

“But the principle of driving a race car that loses effectively half of its power before the end of the straight is hard to get your head around sometimes. 

“Even in Spa, a lot of the middle sector we were doing it just on the combustion engine, with no battery assistance at all, which is a weird feeling in itself, having some corners with a certain amount of power and others with full power. 

“Spa was particularly frustrating, not just for me but for quite a lot of others, because those small differences in the code and what the engines did made quite a big difference in laptime. 

“Especially at the front of the field, I think there were still only nine hundredths or something separating four positions [0.094s covered third to sixth], and there were definitely more than nine hundredths on the table for quite a few drivers from things they could not control.” 

These forward-thinking algorithms have existed for a long-time before 2026, but as Piastri highlighted, knowledge of the previous power units was so mature, the impact was minimal. 

“When I joined Formula 1 [in 2023], those engines were incredibly mature, but also the penalty of things being slightly wrong or slightly out of place was significantly less, because it was such a small percentage of the overall power you got,” Piastri said.

“Whereas this year, it’s basically half your power, so any small differences or anything that doesn’t quite go right has a massive impact, especially at a track like Spa. 

“We’ve got no control over where the deployment happens, more or less. You can push the boost button, but that’s more for overtaking than in qualifying, especially. 

“When you’ve got those differences there that you have no control over, it can be frustrating.” 

‘Less raw’ a challenge 

Charles Leclerc has long bemoaned the reduced challenge of qualifying in 2026 and how you can actually be punished for the kind of all-out qualifying laps he’s become renowned for. He gave the example of doing a “very good” La Source Turn 1 at Spa, only to be punished for it as he then consequently lacks power on the Kemmel Straight. 

He explained "I feel like we all get surprised here and there on different tracks, because it's never always always the same reason why a problem has occurred, which makes it quite complicated.” 

As Max Verstappen summed up: “Sometimes you cannot make a difference. You're not allowed to make a difference because it will just penalise you on the next straight.”

Asked if fast drivers were still being rewarded, Leclerc said: “The characteristics of a fast driver is to adapt, constantly and quickly. 

“To be a fast driver only on one car- I mean, it is not great, and I don't think it exists so much either. I think a fast driver is fast in any car. 

“Does it add a little bit more unpredictability with these cars? Yes, it does, and I think pushing the absolute limit is probably less rewarding than it was in the past because whenever you go over, whenever you have a wheelspin, you waste energy on a wheelspin because you're not going forward but you're using the battery. 

“So all these kinds of things are making it a bit- it's less raw and it's a little bit more of a thinking game and of restraining yourself from going to the absolute limit, which is not my favourite exercise but again it's the way it is and I've got to optimise whatever I have.” 

‘Too complicated’ - but will it change? 

Haas team boss Ayao Komatsu (left) and Mercedes deputy team principal Bradley Lord

It’s not just drivers calling for change either as Haas team boss Ayao Komatsu thinks F1’s formula is “just too complicated” currently as “it relies on a tiny detail of driver operation that has an unintended or secondary consequence. 

“I think we all identify the need to avoid [it] and improve as a sport to bring the control back to the driver and also just simplify for everyone. 

“It's very important that everyone understands the sport regardless of what your interests are. To be able to do that, I think the sport has to be a bit more simplified.” 

But whether it will change before F1’s likely switch to simpler V8 engines remains to be seen. 

There are 2027 and 2028 rule changes planned that will shift F1 from its current 53-47 internal combustion engine to electrical power split to 60-40 in favour of the internal combustion engine. 

But that won’t eliminate the predictive algorithms, just reduce their importance as the electrical deployment is lessened. 

Piastri does think that teams’ growing understanding of how to exploit these power units will help too. 

“I’m sure it’ll get better. I don’t expect it to ever fully go away, but as the manufacturers understand it more and work out the regulation restrictions more, in terms of what the code can and can’t do, hopefully things will become a bit better,” Piastri said. 

That will lead to fewer mistakes with the algorithms but won’t necessarily mean more power back in the driver’s hands. 

A counter view

Not everyone is aligned that things need to be simplified in the first place, however.

When asked about the predictive algorithms, Audi F1 driver Gabriel Bortoleto said: “We are in Formula 1. We are developing the future technology. 

“If we are not using all the tools that are available in the world for us, in our favour, then I don't know what Formula 1 is about. 

“People used to complain because ‘nowadays the drivers have too much things to do’, now that there is things doing it for us, we are complaining now that they are doing it for us - so I'm happy with the way it's going.

“It's nice that the software is able to adapt itself and understand what and how much energy you are deploying through the lap and how to evolve through the laps, next laps you are doing. I don't think it should change, if I'm very honest, that's my opinion.”

He thinks adapting to such a challenge is just part of being an F1 driver.

“I don't think I changed much my way of driving, but again I don't like the sentence 'driving style', because I don't believe that a F1 driver should ever say that, because we should be able to adapt, even if it's not natural maybe.

“But we should be able to adapt to any type of car and the way you need to drive, that's why we do what we do and that's why we are the 22 drivers in the world doing F1.”

On the subject of whether the fastest drivers are still able to stand out, Bortoleto said: “Well, do you see Verstappen being slow? Do you see a seven-time world champion being slow this year? Do you see Leclerc being slow? I don't see them being slow, I still see them very competitive, so I wouldn't say fast drivers are slow.

“Actually Lewis [Hamilton] is a bit better than he was doing last year, Max is still performing like crazy, putting that car on the top, Lando [Norris], the world champion, the reigning world champion, is still quick when his thing doesn't break... 

“I don't think we have seen slow drivers last year becoming quick and the quick guys slow, I think it's still racing.” 

When Bortoleto’s comments were put to Max Verstappen, having clarified who said it, the Red Bull driver said: “Yeah, he's right. I mean, your driving style always needs to change to whatever is fastest. 

“I can drive the cars just saying, ‘this is how I drive it’. Well, I can tell you in Spa, you lose half a second. That shows you how weird it is at the moment.“He’s right, you need to adapt. Adaptability is super important. But that goes for any, like all the series that you've raced in, all the way to F1, I think you always need to adapt to what is best for that car that you are driving.” 

And when The Race put the question of whether F1 needs to move to put more power back in F1 drivers’ hands, Fernando Alonso - who may well feel there’s already plenty out of his control in F1 2026 so far in the slowest car - said: “I don’t know. It depends. I think F1 has always been a little bit like that. 

“I don’t think the drivers were deciding everything, even when we had traction control and some of the other aids. It was very specific to each team, developed by each team in a different way, with different philosophies. 

“You were pressing the throttle at the exit of the corners, and some cars were much better than the others. It’s not pure driver talent or input on some of the exits. 

“It’s the same with the starts. I’ve been doing starts for 25 years, and we’ve had many different regulations. At the end of the day, there were always some cars and some teams starting better than the others, with both cars. It’s not just that someone was doing something differently with the clutch, with a technique or with the throttle application. Both cars from that team were extremely good or extremely bad. 

“I think the team is always bringing the performance to everything. But yes, I think with these current regulations and the battery deployment, there is something that has to be fixed and improved. I think that’s well understood. 

“We are in the first half of this set of regulations, in the first year, and there are already talks about 2030 or 2031 and the V8. 

“Next year, there is already approval for the change to the combustion versus electrical part of the engine. There are things moving forward, and it’s well understood by the sport, by the teams and by everyone. 

“I’m optimistic for the future that it will get better and that it will be better understood what the rules and what the cars need to be.”

- JOSH SUTTILL

MERCEDES GRANTED FIA HEARING OVER GEORGE RUSSELL'S MONACO F1 PENALTY

The FIA has confirmed Mercedes' request for a review of the Monaco Grand Prix results, with a hearing scheduled for this Saturday ahead of the Austrian Grand Prix

George Russell, Mercedes

Photo by: Erik Junius

The FIA has accepted Mercedes' request for a review of the Monaco Grand Prix result and George Russell's penalties, with a hearing scheduled for this Saturday, following Alpine's successful overturning of Pierre Gasly's penalties.

A document published by the FIA on Wednesday confirmed that Mercedes has lodged a Right of Review petition regarding the decision made by the Monaco stewards following Alpine's successful challenge against the penalties issued during the race.

That puts the Monaco Grrand Prix result in further doubt after it was already amended last week.

The hearing will take place in two stages. As per the regulations, the stewards will first determine whether Mercedes has presented a "significant and relevant new element" that was unavailable at the time of the original decision. If that threshold is met, the case will proceed to a second hearing, where the substance of the challenge will be considered.

The latest development follows the dramatic twist in the Monaco Grand Prix result that saw Gasly's two pitlane speeding penalties overturned.

Several drivers were penalised during the race for allegedly exceeding the 60km/h pitlane speed limit. Gasly received two separate five-second penalties, dropping him from a podium finish to seventh place in the final classification.

Sam Bagnall / Sutton Images via Getty Images
Pierre Gasly, Alpine

However, Alpine successfully challenged those penalties after presenting evidence that the distance used by the official timing system in one of the pitlane timing sectors was incorrect for the Monaco pitlane layout. Formula One Management acknowledged the issue, admitting the timing system had been set up incorrectly, leading the stewards to rescind both penalties and restore Gasly to third place.

That decision immediately raised questions about the cases of other drivers who had received penalties under the same circumstances.

While the FIA stewards have not yet formally established that Russell's penalty was unjustified, the fact that FOM acknowledged the timing system was working incorrectly strongly suggests the Mercedes driver may also have been incorrectly penalised for speeding in the pitlane.

Russell was initially handed a five-second penalty for pitlane speeding. He then attempted to serve that penalty during a pitstop, but the stewards later determined that the penalty had not been served correctly. As a result, he received an additional drive-through penalty, which he served after the final restart.

The sequence dropped Russell out of the points, turning what had been a solid points-scoring afternoon into a point-less finish.

The consequences extended beyond Monaco itself, as Russell lost significant ground in the drivers' championship, with the zero score proving particularly costly in his battle against team-mate Kimi Antonelli.

Sam Bagnall / Sutton Images via Getty Images
George Russell, Mercedes

Two other teams are understood to be challenging what is now a provisional Monaco Grand Prix result, with McLaren having already confirmed on Tuesday that it has formally protested the decision to overturn Gasly's penalties.

Its driver Oscar Piastri was also penalised during the race but, unlike Gasly, served his penalty during the grand prix. As a result, the decision to reinstate Gasly's original race time effectively dropped Piastri from fourth to fifth in the final classification.

Red Bull has not confirmed that it has protested last week's stewards' decision, but it is understood to have done so as well, as it seeks to restore Isack Hadjar's podium finish.

Hadjar originally inherited third place after Gasly's penalties were applied, before losing the position again when the Alpine driver's sanctions were rescinded.

Following the stewards' decision to cancel Gasly's penalties, Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff confirmed the team's intention to continue challenging the Monaco result.

While admitting it was a long shot to have Russell's result revised, Wolff stressed that Mercedes would explore every possible avenue to secure a better outcome for its driver.

Although Russell ultimately finished outside the top 10 after serving a drive-through penalty, he had been running third on the road before the sanction was applied.

Wolff suggested there may be a mechanism to revisit the result by converting Russell's drive-through penalty into an equivalent time penalty. Under the sporting regulations, a drive-through penalty that cannot be served during a race is converted into a 20-second addition to a driver's race time.

Guido De Bortoli / LAT Images via Getty Images
George Russell, Mercedes, Lando Norris, McLaren

"A drive-through, if it didn't happen at the end, is equivalent of 20 seconds race time," Wolff said. "What would 20 seconds race time have meant for his result? Do we think that we realistically have a position, a chance of reverting the result? I don't think so, but we definitely have to give it a go if we see that there is a millimetre of chance to do so and bring him back to whatever it was before."

Wolff was referring to Article B1.9.6.c.iii of the sporting regulations, which covers situations where a driver is unable to serve a drive-through penalty during a race. In such cases, 20 seconds are added to the driver's final race time.

The Mercedes boss argued that the same principle could potentially be used in reverse if the original speeding penalty is ultimately deemed invalid. Under that interpretation, Russell's drive-through could effectively be converted into a 20-second race-time adjustment, potentially moving him back into the points-paying positions.

Whether the stewards have the regulatory scope to apply such a solution remains unclear, but it is one of the possible avenues Mercedes could pursue in its attempt to recover some of the ground Russell lost in Monaco.

- Oleg Karpov

OSCAR PIASTRI DELIVERS DAMNING MCLAREN F1 CANADIAN GP VERDICT: 'WE LOOK LIKE IDIOTS'

Oscar PIastri has slammed McLaren's decision to start the F1 Canadian GP on hard tyres

Oscar Piastri has lambasted McLaren’s decision to start the Formula 1 Canadian Grand Prix on intermediate tyres, resulting in a miserable afternoon.

McLaren attempted a radical strategy at the start of the F1 Canadian GP, opting to put Piastri and teammate Lando Norris on intermediate tyres.

The track, while not dry, also did not warrant intermediates, forcing both drivers to pit for dry tyres in the opening two laps.

Now back in the midfield, Piastri suffered a disastrous afternoon and finished outside the points after incurring a ten-second time penalty for crashing into Alex Albon.

Speaking after the race. Piastri revealed how the decision quickly unravelled as the formation lap began.

“There was definitely no standing water, but you could clearly tell where it was wet and where it was dry, and getting to the grid was not easy on slicks; getting to full throttle was pretty tough.

“Unfortunately for us, it stopped raining as the formation lap started, basically. Just one of those things where if it had rained a little bit more, we would have looked like heroes, but it didn’t, so we looked like idiots. So just one of those things.”

Oscar Piastri apologises for Alex Albon crash

Apologising for his crash with Albon, Piastri admitted to driver error, describing the incident as “not my finest moment”.

“It was just so, so difficult out there.

“I felt like I was going into the corner pretty carefully, but locked the front, and that was it. It was not my finest moment.

“Apologies to Alex and Williams, because it was unnecessary damage for both of us, especially for them. So just one of those things.”

McLaren and Piastri will need to deep dive urgently as to how a front row and top six start led to no points.

- James Phillips