“`html
Oscar Piastri’s victory ahead of Lando Norris secured a McLaren one-two finish at the Belgian Grand Prix, further solidifying his lead in the drivers’ championship by 16 points.
Formula 1 now sets its sights on Hungary for the 14th round of the season next weekend, preceding the summer break.
BBC Sport F1 correspondent Andrew Benson addresses the latest inquiries from fans.
Tom asks: In both races this weekend, it almost seemed to be a disadvantage to qualify on pole because of the slipstream on such a long straight. Is there anything that can be done on this specific track to ensure pole is actually an advantage?
It is true that the pole-sitters at the Belgian Grand Prix experienced a loss of lead on the approach to Les Combes during the opening lap, effectively impacting their race outcomes—Oscar Piastri against Max Verstappen in the sprint, and Lando Norris against Piastri in the Grand Prix.
However, these scenarios unfolded under distinct circumstances.
The sprint race featured a standing start in dry conditions. Piastri executed his start as effectively as possible, but Verstappen, closely following him through Eau Rouge, capitalized on the slipstream to overtake him uphill.
Piastri had anticipated this possibility prior to the race, influenced by the track layout and Verstappen’s lower downforce configuration, granting him an advantage on the straight.
This disparity became evident during the sprint, as Piastri, despite possessing a faster car and a considerable advantage in the middle sector, could not sufficiently close the gap to challenge Verstappen.
The Grand Prix presented a different situation. The wet conditions necessitated a rolling start, which theoretically should have facilitated Norris in maintaining his lead.
However, questions arose regarding his restart, as noted by McLaren team principal Andrea Stella.
Firstly, Norris initiated the restart prematurely, prompting Piastri to follow suit, denying Norris the lead over the start line, which would have been advantageous.
Subsequently, Norris committed a mistake at La Source, enabling Piastri to close in, effectively turning Norris into a sitting duck. Piastri then secured the pass by navigating Eau Rouge as aggressively as possible—exceeding Norris’s comfort level.
As Norris conceded, “Oscar deserved it.”
However, it is not a certainty that the pole-sitter will relinquish the lead at Spa at Les Combes, as exemplified by Charles Leclerc’s successful retention of it last year. The outcome is contingent upon the specific circumstances.
Regarding the notion of pole position, it is intended to reward a driver for their qualifying performance but does not guarantee an inherent right to lead after the first lap.
Consequently, altering the historic, charismatic, and challenging layout of Spa is unwarranted. Such a change would be undesirable.
Send us your question for F1 correspondent Andrew Benson
Harj asks: Safety should and will be always be paramount in F1, but do you feel the FIA needs to recalibrate how to manage wet race conditions? Do you think the FIA’s overly-conservative approach is hampering F1 drivers truly demonstrating their all-weather driving abilities?
Following the Belgian Grand Prix, there was a sentiment that the race director had exercised excessive caution in determining the race’s start time.
Max Verstappen expressed his belief that the race could have commenced on schedule at 3 p.m. local time and that a red flag would have been unnecessary if the cars had been allowed additional laps to clear water from the track.
However, Verstappen had a vested interest, as Red Bull had modified his car to incorporate more downforce than the McLarens and Leclerc’s Ferrari, specifically anticipating rain.
Lewis Hamilton concurred, suggesting that the race could have started sooner, even after the delay.
Nevertheless, all drivers acknowledged that they had previously requested race officials not to initiate wet races prematurely, referencing an incident at Silverstone.
During a safety-car restart at Silverstone, Racing Bulls’ Isack Hadjar collided with the rear of Kimi Antonelli’s Mercedes at Copse due to impaired visibility.
Additionally, the inherent dangers of Spa must be considered, including the tragic incidents involving Anthoine Hubert in 2019 and Dilano van t’Hoft in 2023 in junior category races.
Both drivers crashed and subsequently re-entered the track, where they were struck at high speed by other cars, resulting in fatal injuries.
Piastri noted after the race, “Maybe we could have done one less formation lap. But in the grand scheme of things, if that’s one lap too early, is it worth it? No.”
Ed asks: Is Lewis Hamilton’s drop in performance caused by trying too hard and overthinking everything in the whole organisation? Surely there’s only so much one person can do?
Lewis Hamilton’s Belgian Grand Prix weekend represented an anomaly within a recent trend of encouraging form.
Following a challenging start to the season, his average qualifying deficit to teammate Charles Leclerc had been a mere 0.05 seconds since the Miami Grand Prix in May, out-qualifying Leclerc in three of the preceding four races.
However, Hamilton acknowledged that his driving in both qualifying sessions at Spa was “unacceptable.”
Extenuating circumstances existed, including new braking characteristics on his car, which Leclerc had used since Canada, and Ferrari’s introduction of a new rear suspension to lower the car.
These changes in car behavior caught Hamilton off guard when braking hard for the Bus Stop chicane during sprint qualifying.
Hamilton also had a new data engineer, a former Mercedes colleague, for the weekend.
Hamilton explained, “It’s not easy to switch engineers within the middle of a season. It’s someone that I’ve known for years. He was actually on my previous team with me. But not in that position. So we’re getting used to each other. Having to learn super, super quick.
“The changes that we had really caught both of us out.”
He also misjudged track limits at Raidillon during grand prix qualifying, negating a lap time closely matching Leclerc’s.
There were no underlying factors beyond these events.
Geoff asks: If Red Bull’s new engine next year is clearly down on performance and not likely to be a front-runner that season, how long will Max Verstappen hang around? When will we be able to form an impression of what next year’s engine might be able to give him?
Firstly, it is impossible to definitively ascertain whether Red Bull’s 2026 engine will underperform.
Industry sources suggest that Mercedes may possess a slight advantage in internal combustion engine performance for 2026.
While manufacturers operate independently and would deny being behind, information leaks through various channels.
However, the coming year extends beyond internal combustion engine performance. The electrical component, accounting for approximately 50% of total power output, and new sustainable fuels will also significantly impact performance.
Relative performance levels will only become apparent next year.
The future of Red Bull’s car design group following Adrian Newey’s departure and the team’s recent performance decline also presents uncertainties.
Regarding Verstappen’s future, it is likely that he will remain at Red Bull in 2026, as he reportedly prefers to stay for various reasons.
Given the aforementioned uncertainty, remaining with Red Bull represents the logical decision. This approach allows Verstappen to assess the situation in 2026 and potentially facilitate a contractually easier departure if Red Bull struggles.
“`