F1 Q&A: Is Verstappen winning in an ‘inferior car’?

Lewis Hamilton, in his first Ferrari outing in Italy, finished fourth.

The Monaco Grand Prix will take place on May 23 and 25 in the European triple-header.

Why do people get so excited when Max Verstappen claims to be winning in a car even though it is obviously not? – Bob

There is a good sample from which to choose after seven races to determine the car’s strengths and weaknesses.

On pure qualifying pace, McLaren have four pole positions to Red Bull’s three, and the McLaren is quicker on average by 0.138 seconds a lap, or 0.163%.

Oscar Piastri, a McLaren driver, won four races, while Lando Norris, a teammate, and Max Verstappen, a Red Bull driver, won two.

Just distilling it down to those raw statistics, it is clear to see why “people” would say the Red Bull was an “inferior” car, as you put it. Given that, overall, it is true that the McLaren performs better in more diverse circumstances.

But their relative performance changes depending on track characteristics.

The Red Bull excels in high-speed corners particularly. That’s why its best tracks of the season have been Suzuka, Jeddah and Imola.

This was not as clear as it is now with the Japanese Grand Prix, which likely contributed to Verstappen’s pole position and victory at Suzuka.

That’s not to diminish the quality of his pole there. The McLaren was undoubtedly outstanding; Piastri or Norris could have easily beaten it if they had snagged their laps at Suzuka. But it is extra context.

The McLaren is a stronger relative package, especially in races, when rear-tyre degradation is a major issue and/or the corners are slower overall.

That’s how they can go from humiliating Verstappen and Red Bull in Miami to being beaten fair and square in Imola – although had Piastri held on to the lead at the first corner on Sunday, he may well have been able to take a defensive win in a similar fashion to Verstappen’s in Japan.

The situation is never fixed, though, because McLaren hasn’t actually improved since the last two races, and Red Bull have only introduced upgrades once in the past two.

McLaren team principal Andrea Stella put it like this on Sunday evening in Imola: “Red Bull have improved. Over the past few races, they have developed their car, and I believe they have made a significant improvement.

” And then, if you look at the speed of the corners, and we compare it with the speed in Miami, it’s a completely different regime. The car moves through entirely different aerodynamic maps.

“We know that our car is strong in track layouts like Miami, or Bahrain, or China. However, I don’t believe we have any particular advantage when it comes to high-speed corners like we do here in Imola.

McLaren also threw away the chance of a victory by refusing to follow team orders, despite what it was great to finally witness in Lando Norris vs. Oscar Piastri action. Is it too early in the championship for this, or did they miss a trick by not letting Norris have a go at Max Verstappen after the safety car? – Tom

The different situations at the two teams contending for the drivers ‘ championship certainly provide an interesting contrast.

On the one hand, McLaren is trying to be fair to both drivers while Red Bull are primarily focused on Max Verstappen.

This reflects a fundamental difference in approach from the two teams, but it also arises practically from circumstance.

Verstappen is Red Bull’s clear top dog, but he’s also their only front-driver who consistently appears in the mix.

McLaren can’t impose team orders at this early stage of the season, as their drivers are closely matched, and it would undermine the philosophy with which they go racing, and the pledges they have made to both.

There is no evidence to suggest McLaren “threw away the chance of a win” by failing to apply team orders “on Sunday in Imola,” though.

Presumably the question is based on the final part of the race, after the safety-car restart, when Piastri on old tyres was second behind Verstappen, and Norris, on fresh rubber, was third.

Verstappen would have won if McLaren had immediately instructed them to change positions, according to the question.

But why should anyone assume Norris would definitely have passed Verstappen had he been behind him at the restart?

They lived on equal life tires, and Imola’s overtaking is challenging. And at no stage in the race did either McLaren driver look like they had the pace to challenge Verstappen once he was ahead.

Piastri continued to follow him for a while during the initial outing, but soon started to back and berate himself because his tires were starting to wear off. And Norris made no ground on Verstappen once he was clear of George Russell’s Mercedes.

Once Piastri had taken the lead at the first corner, the McLaren and Red Bull’s chances of winning were effectively gone.

Stella said:” We attempted to unlock various scenarios to try to beat Max, but at no stage I think we saw that we had enough race pace.

Are we starting to see Adrian Newey’s influence at Aston Martin with their latest upgrade packages? Tim

Aston Martin have been keen to play down the idea of Newey having any involvement in the 2025 car since he joined at the beginning of March, emphasising that his priority is the new rules being introduced next year.

However, Newey claimed to have had some involvement in a conversation that was conducted on the team’s website prior to Imola.

“Lawrence]Stroll – team owner] understandably wants us to do as well as we can in 2025, so there’s a small team still working on this year’s car from an aerodynamics point of view”, Newey said.

“I’ve had a few lunchtime conversations with that small group about the car and what we can do about it.”

So, the short answer is, yes.

According to Aston Martin, the foundation of the upgrade package, which was released last weekend, was created shortly after Newey joined the Australian Grand Prix. There is no suggestion he was heavily involved in it.

Why wouldn’t Newey, however, say that if he could see some easy wins and low-hanging fruit for the 2025 car? He’s in the factory, after all. And it appears to be exactly what is happening, without detracting too much from the upcoming year.

Having said that, it is important not to overstate the impact of the Imola upgrade.

Yes, Lance Stroll and Fernando Alonso both placed fifth on the grid in the qualifying session, which was the team’s best qualifying performance thus far this year.

But there were a number of factors in that. In a way that no other team did, they used both medium and soft tyres in qualifying and they did it right.

It would be wrong, though, to say their places were entirely down to using mediums for their final runs in Q2 and Q3 because, as Alonso said, they were quick on both types of tyres.

Both drivers did a good job of completing their laps, which hasn’t always happened this year.

And Imola was a high-speed circuit, the type where the Aston Martin has been most at home this year.

This was the fastest they could get in terms of raw-pace, reaching pole at 101.019% in 2025.

But it was only slightly better than Japan (101.051%) and Saudi Arabia (101.156%), at both of which Alonso qualified 13th.

So, it was encouraging, but it hasn’t yet experienced a whole new dawn.

Why were Esteban Ocon’s retirement and Kimi Antonelli’s complete safety stopped at the same time? – Darren

These two scenarios, on the surface, do appear to suggest the inconsistency drivers and teams are asking the FIA to avoid.

In fact, the different responses were a result of them stopping in the same place, the FIA says.

On the descent uphill from Tosa to Pirella, both stopped on the left-hand side of the track on the grass. Ocon’s Haas was rolled backwards down the hill to the nearest marshals ‘ post, where it was placed out of danger behind a barrier.

The virtual safety car was created because this task was relatively simple and could be completed quickly.

But it meant that when Antonelli’s Mercedes stopped in more or less the same place – actually a little further on – there was no space for it in the marshals ‘ post behind it, because Ocon’s car was already there.

A recovery vehicle was required in addition to the fact that it had to be pushed uphill to the next marshals’ post. And it took about five minutes for the recovery vehicle to get there.

During Imola qualifying, both Yuki Tsunoda and Franco Colapinto completely trashed their respective cars. They begin the race less than 24 hours later. Is it a totally new car? Complete rebuilding, or partial rebuilding? Can they work on them overnight? With the teams or the bits that have flown in, are there gaps? What are the rules of the game? – Keith

Tsunoda’s car required a new chassis, and Red Bull also fitted a new engine. Despite the severity of the accident, the team claims that quite a few parts were still able to be carried over.

Red Bull were up until 2am fixing it. Teams have three exemptions throughout the year to avoid being penalized for breaking this, but there is a curfew overnight to ensure staff get enough rest.

In this case, while Red Bull were at the track outside the curfew hours, they did not break it because they withdrew the car from what is known as parc ferme – a regulation that means changes cannot be made between qualifying and race. And if they are, the car travels in the pit lane.

Colapinto’s crash was nowhere near as big, and Alpine did not change his chassis, nor did they fit a new engine. However, a number of components were changed, including completely new front (but not rear) suspension, as well as a number of other components, all of which were listed on official documents.