As the Dutch GP leaves the Formula 1 calendar, McLaren’s recovery is becoming clear. Norris took a second consecutive victory, looking more mature than last season and again showing why he is the reigning World Champion. The Mercedes pair completed the podium, with Antonelli extending his championship lead over Russell and Hamilton to 59 points.

The race was less processional than expected, despite how difficult overtaking remains at Zandvoort. Verstappen’s crash just after the opening lap caused a red flag and, at the restart, Antonelli took the lead from Norris. Their fuel-corrected pace in the first stint was very similar, moving from the low 1:13s towards the high 1:14s, despite Norris running Softs and Antonelli Mediums. Russell was generally three to six tenths slower, but recovered the position lost to Piastri through an early stop and McLaren’s slow pit stop. On the Hard, Norris gradually reduced the gap, but the decisive advantage came from the second pit-stop offset: Antonelli stopped on lap 41, while Norris waited until lap 48 and rejoined on tires seven laps fresher. In only three laps, the gap fell from more than five seconds to around 1.4 before Norris passed around the outside of Turn 1 on lap 54. The following VSC allowed Antonelli to switch to Softs, while Russell stayed out on Hards and retained track position. Mercedes later inverted the cars, with Russell remaining strong enough through Sector 3 to defend into Turn 1 and protect third place.

Ferrari finished fourth and fifth, but their Sunday pace was much stronger than their third-row qualifying positions had suggested. The ranking plot places Ferrari’s median around 1:16.3, in the same overall range as Mercedes and McLaren, although with a slightly wider spread. The violin plot also shows substantial overlap between Hamilton and Leclerc and the leading drivers. However, both plots aggregate laps completed on different compounds, at different tire ages and in different race phases: they show that Ferrari were competitive, but not that the underlying pace was identical. Nor can they isolate grid position, traffic and time spent following another car. Starting from the third row, both Ferraris spent much of the race in traffic: Leclerc lost a position at the restart and later had a slow stop, while Hamilton used a longer first stint to move back ahead. Both switched to Softs under the VSC, but rejoined behind Russell and could not convert the tire advantage into a pass. Hamilton finished only 0.8s from the podium, with Leclerc 1.3s behind Russell. P4 and P5 therefore hide how close Ferrari were, while showing why competitive lap-time distributions do not automatically become track position.

Norris’ advantage was already present in the lap-time trends; the six-lap offset between the McLaren stops gave it room to appear. Piastri’s gearbox failure removed a likely double podium, but did not create Norris’ lead.

The fuel-corrected plot separates pace from degradation. Norris’ opening regression moves from around 1:21.6 to 1:22.7, Verstappen’s from 1:21.8 to 1:22.6 and Antonelli’s from 1:22.1 to 1:23.1. Their slopes are about 0.08s, 0.07s and 0.05s per lap: Norris has the fastest baseline, not the flattest curve. On the first hard stint, Norris runs from 1:22.1 to 1:23.2 at 0.06s per lap. Verstappen approaches 1:24.0 at 0.08s; Antonelli remains flatter but starts four tenths slower.

The strategy and gapper plots show how this became track position. Piastri stopped on lap 33; Norris remained on the same compound until lap 39. Once the cycle closed, Piastri was two to three seconds behind. The gap grew to six seconds by lap 45, reached ten around lap 50, and exceeded twelve before the retirement. Traffic and the Sainz contact mattered; the gearbox did not decide which McLaren was ahead.

The VSC changes the final tire picture. Norris fits used softs, Verstappen stays out on a set that completes 29 laps, and Antonelli retains the hards fitted on lap 54. Norris’ closing trend runs from roughly 1:22.3 to 1:23.1; Verstappen’s from 1:22.6 to 1:23.7. That six-to-nine-tenth difference opens the gap from around six seconds after the VSC to 15.080s at the flag. Antonelli finishes 18.728s behind.

The ranking plot places McLaren around 1:24.7 and Ferrari at 1:24.8, with Mercedes and Red Bull near 1:25.2. The violin distributions of Norris, Leclerc and Hamilton also overlap heavily between 1:24 and 1:25.5. Their separate lobes mostly reflect compound, fuel load and stint position; they are distributions of lap times, not degradation curves.

Ferrari therefore had representative pace, but did little with it. The soft-hard-hard-soft sequence required three stops, while the initial soft stint left both cars behind Verstappen despite Ferrari topping Friday. The final deficits, 23.8s for Leclerc and 24.5s for Hamilton, describe track position and execution more than a slow car. Hamilton’s five-second penalty reversed their order.

Norris gives McLaren its first win of 2026. The team links the performance step to its new floor and corner package; the plots confirm the step without identifying its source. Antonelli enters the summer break 50 points ahead of Hamilton, with Russell a further nine behind.

Spa made Antonelli win this race twice. He started from pole, briefly lost P1 to Verstappen, and recovered it before Les Combes. Then the Virtual Safety Car put Leclerc ahead through the pit cycle. With ten laps remaining, Antonelli had to pass the Ferrari on track and keep it behind. The winning margin was 1.9s; for part of the closing phase, it was closer to half a second.

The opening stint explains why the race never fully stabilised. Antonelli, Leclerc, and Verstappen stayed in a narrow window on the medium tire. In the fuel-corrected plot, their trends begin between roughly 1:47.6 and 1:48.0 and reach the high 1:48s near the pit window. Verstappen’s curve rises more sharply, and Antonelli’s is the cleanest, but nobody builds enough margin to remove strategy from the equation.

The decisive sequence came between laps 18 and 20. Verstappen stopped first. Antonelli covered him after the initial, short VSC and retained the net lead; a second VSC then gave Ferrari the cheaper stop it needed. Leclerc emerged ahead.

The recovery was shaped more by stint timing than compound choice, as both Antonelli and Leclerc ran the same tire. Leclerc’s slightly fresher set, gained by stopping later, helped him initially maintain track position, but it did not translate into a lasting pace advantage. Antonelli progressively closed the gap and completed the pass around lap 34. His fuel-corrected regression stays generally one to three tenths below Leclerc’s during the second stint, including late in the race. Leclerc remained close at times and kept the Mercedes under pressure, but never created a real opportunity to attack.

Verstappen’s third place followed a different path. He led briefly, passed Leclerc early, and forced Mercedes to react by stopping on lap 18. On the hard, Red Bull could not match the leading pair. The gap opens progressively after lap 30 and reaches 11.5s at the flag; his fuel-corrected trend is also the steepest of the three in the final stint.

The ranking plot keeps the margins clear. Mercedes has a median around 1:49.9, Ferrari 1:50.2 and Red Bull 1:50.3; McLaren follows at roughly 1:50.7. Mercedes’ sample is effectively Antonelli alone after Russell retired on lap one, so this is not a clean two-car comparison. The quickest package still takes the win, without controlling every phase from the front.

Antonelli secures his sixth win of the season and joins the group of drivers who take their first Monaco and Spa victories in the same year. For 2026, Russell’s first-lap retirement leaves him 50 points behind. Hamilton becomes the closest challenger, 45 back.

Silverstone is a difficult race to read if we stop at the final order. Leclerc won it, and Ferrari did a lot right, but this was not a race where the win was fully sealed by pace alone. The late Safety Car froze the last laps, and before that, Antonelli’s issue removed what was probably the main threat to the Ferrari. Leclerc’s first part of the race was solid. He took the lead, kept the medium tire alive, and avoided the expensive end-of-stint drop that can quickly turn into lost track position at Silverstone. In the fuel-corrected plot, the front group is very compact early on: Leclerc, Russell and Hamilton are mostly between 1:30.5 and 1:32.5, without a clear runaway trend. Ferrari had pace, but Mercedes was not far enough away to make this comfortable.

The key difference was strategy timing. Leclerc stopped around lap 25; Antonelli stayed out much longer and delayed his stop to lap 36. That made the race unstable. Ferrari had track position, but Antonelli had built a large tire offset for the final phase. Once he rejoined, the gap was still there, but the tire picture was moving towards Mercedes. In that scenario, Leclerc would likely have had to defend the win on track rather than simply manage it.

Then the race changed. Antonelli’s front-left wheel shield problem destroyed the comparison just when it was becoming interesting. Two extra stops, compromised pace, a penalty, and the Mercedes dropped out of the fight. From that point, the Ferrari win became much safer, not because Leclerc suddenly found another level, but because the car with the most threatening tire situation was no longer part of the lead battle.

The gapper plot shows that the break is quite clear. Up to lap 20, the front is still compressed; the first pit cycle starts to open the race, then the second major shift comes around laps 38-42, where strategy phase and Antonelli’s issue reshape the order. Verstappen’s late crash adds the final interruption. With the Safety Car out, the race no longer has the last green-flag phase it probably needed.

The team pace picture also keeps the result in perspective. Ferrari and Mercedes are almost overlapping in the ranking plot, with medians around 1:34.0-1:34.1. Red Bull and McLaren sit only slightly behind. So this was not a dominant Ferrari race in pure performance terms.

It was a strong Leclerc win, but with an asterisk in the technical reading: Ferrari converted the opportunity, while Mercedes lost the race Antonelli still had the tires to contest.

Naples, 2 July 2026 – Pirelli has entered into an agreement with RIDEsense, a start-up spun out from the Department of Industrial Engineering at the University of Naples Federico II and the MegaRide Group, which specialises in the development of advanced technologies for mobility, to collaborate on the development of new software solutions to be integrated into the Pirelli Cyber Tyre ecosystem. The agreement, which grants Pirelli a licence to use RIDEsense’s virtual sensor technology and includes specific safeguards regarding the granting of rights to third parties, also provides for Pirelli to acquire a 24.99% equity stake in RIDEsense, together with an option to increase its holding up to 100% of the company’s share capital.

The integration of the physical sensors used in the Pirelli Cyber Tyre system with RIDEsense’s virtual sensors (algorithms that process information generated by the sensors already installed in vehicles) will further expand the contribution of Cyber Tyre to the vehicle’s electronic safety systems. It will also strengthen existing functions, such as aquaplaning detection, while enabling the development of new capabilities related to tyre diagnostics and, more broadly, vehicle diagnostics. The Pirelli Cyber Tyre ecosystem therefore adds another key element in its evolution towards playing an increasingly important role in ADAS and autonomous driving systems.

PIRELLI CYBER TYRE

Already fitted as original equipment on selected vehicle models currently on the market, the Pirelli Cyber Tyre system is the world’s first integrated hardware and software solution capable of collecting data from sensors embedded in tyres and processing it using Pirelli’s proprietary software and algorithms. The information is transmitted to the vehicle’s electronic systems in real time, enabling new functions integrated with driving and control systems, including ABS, ESP and traction control. The aim of Pirelli’s technology is to improve vehicle safety, performance and efficiency. It can also be used to monitor the condition of road infrastructure, helping to identify situations that may pose potential risks to road users. Pilot projects for this application are already underway in collaboration with public authorities.

RIDEsense

RIDEsense’s technology is based on physics-based algorithms that model vehicle and tyre behaviour. It is available both as software, implementing virtual sensors within standard production vehicle electronic control units (ECUs), and as hardware through the development of the dedicated Kymes platform, designed to provide direct access to the testing and motorsport markets.

“More than 20 years ago, we embarked on the journey that led to the integration of data collection and transmission capabilities into tyres, giving rise to Cyber Tyre technology. Our agreement with RIDEsense will further expand the potential of this ecosystem by strengthening its software component, which lies at the very heart of Cyber Tyre,” said Piero Misani, Chief Technical Officer at Pirelli.

“This is a significant agreement for Italy,” commented RIDEsense Chief Executive Officers Flavio Farroni and Aleksandr Sakhnevych. “It brings together Italian research and industry to take a project that began more than ten years ago in Naples, within the Vehicle Dynamics Group at the University of Naples Federico II, and supported by the University’s technology transfer structures, onto Pirelli’s production lines. As mobility becomes increasingly connected, technologies capable of delivering greater safety, efficiency and driving quality are essential. This is the objective we share with Pirelli.”

PIRELLI

Founded in Milan in 1872, Pirelli is one of the world’s leading tyre manufacturers and the only global company exclusively focused on the Consumer tyre market, which includes tyres for cars, motorcycles and bicycles. With a distinctive positioning in the High Value segment, the Group has established itself as a global brand recognised for cutting-edge technology, premium manufacturing excellence and a passion for innovation deeply rooted in its Italian heritage. Pirelli’s technological leadership is also driven by the innovation and expertise gained through more than 115 years of involvement in motorsport. Today, the company competes in more than 350 car and motorcycle racing events and has been the Global Tyre Partner of the FIA Formula One World Championship since 2011.

RIDEsense

Founded in 2023 within the MegaRide ecosystem (a spin-off from the University of Naples Federico II that has also generated innovative companies including VESevo and Grip Advisor, and acquired Wriggle Solutions), RIDEsense was launched with the support of Iniziativa Cube and Innova et Impera. The company is now based at the Campania NewSteel incubator, operating within an advanced technology ecosystem supported by strong academic and industrial partnerships and protected by an international patent portfolio safeguarding its innovations.

MegaRide, a tech-transfer holding originating from the Vehicle Dynamics group at the University of Naples Federico II, which develops real-time models to simulate tire-road interaction,announces a collaboration with TU Brno Racing, the Formula Student team of the Brno University of Technology, for the upcoming racing seasons.

Founded in 2010, TU Brno Racing brings together students from different academic backgrounds who design, manufacture and test a new single-seater each year. The team has developed multiple generations of race cars over time and regularly competes in international Formula Student events.

The collaboration focuses on supporting the team’s vehicle modeling and simulation activities through dedicated educational programmes and technical expertise in tire dynamics. TU Brno Racing will work on comparing simulation outputs with the actual behavior of the car, using this process to improve model consistency and make virtual analysis more effective during vehicle development.

The activity will allow the team to build a clearer understanding of tire dynamics and their influence on vehicle performance, supporting more informed decisions in setup definition and control strategies while reducing the need for extensive physical testing.

By bringing experience gained in top-level motorsport categories, including Formula 1, Formula E and MotoGP, into a Formula Student environment, MegaRide aims to support the practical growth of young engineers and contribute to the development of skills applied directly to vehicle dynamics.

Austria was not a race where the fastest-looking final stint automatically decided the result. On a short lap like Spielberg, the margin between strategy gain and tire-age penalty is small, and that is where Russell’s race was built.

The front group stayed on a similar strategic structure. Russell, Verstappen and Antonelli all started on medium and then completed the race on two hard stints. The difference was mainly in timing: Russell committed earlier, stopping around lap 19 and then again in the low 40s. Verstappen and Antonelli extended the middle stint and therefore had a fresher hard tire for the final phase.

The fuel-corrected lap time plot makes this trade-off quite clear. Russell’s final stint does not appear to be the lowest-degradation one of the three. His trend moves from the high 1:09s towards the mid 1:11s by the end. Verstappen shows a slightly flatter late-race evolution, while Antonelli’s last hard stint is probably the cleanest of the front group.

Estimated final-stint degradation is close rather than extreme: Russell around 0.11–0.13 s/lap, Verstappen roughly 0.10–0.12 s/lap, with Antonelli slightly lower. So the result is more a matter of when the tire performance was available and whether it could be converted into track position.

That is the key point. Russell accepted more tire age at the end, but had already placed the car in the right position before the final offset became significant. Verstappen and Antonelli came back with better tire life, but the advantage was not large enough or early enough to reverse the order.

The gapper supports the same reading. The main reshuffling comes around the pit windows, especially between laps 20 and 50. After that, the gaps compress again at the front, but without a complete change in race structure.

At team level, Mercedes has the strongest aggregate race pace, with a median just below 1:12. Red Bull, McLaren and Ferrari are packed in the same performance band, separated by only a few tenths. Racing Bulls, Audi and Alpine form the next group around the 1:13 region, while the lower midfield moves towards the mid-1:14s.

The violin plot adds a useful detail: Russell’s lap distribution is compact in the low 1:11s / low 1:12s, while Verstappen has comparable peaks but a wider spread. Antonelli’s late pace stands out, although the race had already been shaped before that final run.

In the end, this was a very technical Austria win built on the balance between degradation, pit timing and clean-air execution.

F1 BARCELONA-CATALUNYA GP 2026 | Hamilton wins it through stint pace

Hamilton’s race came together through pace, tire control and a three-stop strategy timed around the VSC. He started on soft, switched to hard, ran the medium in the middle phase and returned to hard around lap 41. That final stop cost less under Virtual Safety Car conditions and allowed him to rejoin ahead of Russell and Norris on a much fresher set. From there, he controlled the last stint and finished roughly twenty seconds clear of Russell.

The fuel-corrected plot shows how the race developed. Early on, Hamilton, Russell and Norris are close, mostly between 1:18 and 1:21 as the first sets age. The gap opens on the final hard stint. Hamilton’s fitted trend begins below 1:19 and rises to just under 1:22 by the flag. Russell runs around two to five tenths slower through much of the same phase, while Norris shows the steepest late-stint increase and ends close to 1:23.

Hamilton’s degradation rate in that final stint is roughly 0.13–0.14 s/lap. Russell is nearer 0.16 s/lap, Norris around 0.17–0.18 s/lap. The fresh hard gave Hamilton a lower starting offset and a flatter progression, enough to turn the VSC window into a decisive advantage rather than simply recover the extra pit stop.

The gapper makes the strategy easier to read. Each pit cycle reshapes the order, yet Hamilton rebuilds the margin every time. Russell and Norris remain in the same performance group; Verstappen falls towards the forty-second region and Piastri approaches one minute by the end. The late sequence exaggerates some of the final gaps, but the race had already moved in Hamilton’s direction before the last phase.

Ferrari also leads the aggregate ranking plot, with a median close to 1:22.1. Mercedes is almost level, McLaren sits around 1:22.5 and Red Bull slightly higher. Since the box plot combines both drivers, compounds and stint lengths, the violin distributions are useful here. Hamilton has a strong concentration of laps around 1:20.8–1:21.4, plus another dense area near 1:22.7–1:23.2. Russell and Norris spend less time in the quickest band and their distributions are shifted upwards.

For Hamilton, this was a huge win. His first for Ferrari came after a long wait, and it arrived with a race that demanded commitment from both driver and pit wall. Ferrari was quicker than expected in Barcelona, took the VSC opportunity without hesitation and had the pace to make the aggressive strategy work. Hamilton finished it with an excellent final stint.

F1 MONACO GP 2026 | Antonelli in a race of his own, Ferrari left with questions

Antonelli had Monaco by the throat from the first stint. Pole, clean air, and a Mercedes that looked properly hooked up through the slow sections.

Before the neutralisations, the race was already stretched. At lap 56, the gapper had Hamilton around +30 s, Hadjar at +85–90 s, and several cars beyond +100 s. Russell had slipped into lapped-traffic territory despite running fourth earlier. The flag shows +6.2 to Hamilton and +23.3 to Hadjar; the race trace was harsher than the final gaps.

Antonelli’s fuel-corrected pace explains why. His first stint mostly sits between 1:13.0 and 1:14.5. Through the middle phase, he stays in the 1:14.5–1:15.2 window with limited scatter. The car rotated, put traction down and repeated the lap without a visible drop-off. Hamilton is the closest reference, often between 1:13.2 and 1:15.7. Hadjar is higher, with many laps around 1:15.5–1:16.6.

Leclerc did not have the same evening. Ferrari’s aggregate pace was good. The ranking plot puts the team median close to 1:17:0 s, with the central box around 1:16:6–1:17:4. Mercedes is similar on median, but broader because Russell stretches the upper tail. McLaren sits nearer 1:18:3 s; Red Bull is centred higher than Ferrari. That explains Ferrari P1 in the ranking plot. It does not change the individual picture: Antonelli was the reference. Leclerc’s DNF leaves the brake topic open. Brembo has asked for telemetry review before conclusions. Ferrari had pace; the result still feels incomplete

Wear: low. In the violin plot, Antonelli’s useful race mass is around 1:16:0–1:17:3. Hamilton is close but messier, near 1:16:5–1:17.6 with more scatter. Hadjar shifts upward, mainly in the 1:17:5–1:19:0 band.

Without the late interruptions, this was a one-stop Monaco. The open question moves to the next tracks: how much of Antonelli’s gap survives when tire management becomes less optional?

F1 CANADIAN GP 2026 | Antonelli controls, McLaren pays for the start call

Antonelli leaves Montreal with a fourth consecutive win and a championship lead that now looks like performance, not momentum. The Canadian GP gives a clear technical picture: Mercedes built the result early, Russell’s technical issue changed the internal race dynamic, and McLaren lost too much ground before its real pace could be judged.

Race pace
The first stint is where Mercedes looks strongest, from the race gapper and the fuel-corrected plot, Antonelli runs in the lower lap-time reference of the front group through the opening 25–30 laps. Early in the run, his fuel-corrected pace is roughly 0.3–0.5s/lap ahead of Hamilton and Verstappen. The ranking plot says the same: Mercedes has a median around 1:15.7, while Ferrari and Red Bull sit in the 1:16.1–1:16.2 range. Around four to five tenths on the central pace distribution. McLaren is around 1:16.8–1:17.0, affected by the opening laps.

Strategy
McLaren’s start on Intermediates is the key technical error of the race. Norris and Piastri immediately enter a different race sequence: tire phase mismatch, traffic, lost track position and negative gap evolution before the car can run in clean air.

Russel
Russell’s retirement on lap 30 changes the second half of the race. Until then, Mercedes had two cars on the front, and the most natural comparison was still internal. Once Russell stops, Antonelli has less reason to keep pushing. That shows after the stop: his gapper trend becomes much closer to Hamilton and Verstappen. More management than attack, with the margin already built.

Ferrari and Red Bull
Hamilton’s race is very solid, especially in the final stint on Mediums. His pace is consistent enough to make Ferrari a genuine second place car on the day, not just a car promoted by Russell’s retirement. Verstappen executes cleanly, but Red Bull looks closer to Ferrari than to Mercedes in race pace. Good enough for the podium fight. Not enough to pressure Antonelli.
Leclerc is less visible in the overall race shape: not slow in absolute terms, but never on a trajectory that could change the podium order.

Takeaway
Canada was a strong first phase followed by a managed second half and Antonelli controlled what he had built. Hamilton made Ferrari effective at the right moment whereas Verstappen maximised a Red Bull that did not quite have the pace to attack. McLaren compromised the race at the start with a tire call that the data did not support afterwards.