ZANDVOORT, Netherlands — Oscar Piastri may have cruised to yet another victory, leading 100 percent of the Dutch Grand Prix’s laps after starting from pole position, but there was plenty of action that unfolded behind the current drivers’ championship leader.
Ferrari suffered a double DNF, after Lewis Hamilton crashed on his own and Charles Leclerc tangled with the Mercedes of Kimi Antonelli (and the stewards found the rookie at fault for causing the collision), and Lando Norris was forced to retire from the race late on after a suspected chassis issue arose.
Not only did the Briton’s DNF help Piastri further the points gap to 34 between the McLaren teammates, but it also elevated Isack Hadjar to his first podium. The Racing Bulls rookie ran in fourth on pure pace, staying ahead of the Mercedes and Ferrari drivers throughout the race. His third-place finish marks Racing Bulls’ first podium appearance since 2021 in Baku, when Pierre Gasly secured third when the team was called AlphaTauri.
Hadjar wasn’t the only rookie to stand out. Ollie Bearman powered from a pit lane start to a sixth-place finish, and teammate Esteban Ocon finished 10th, marking a double points finish for Haas. Aston Martin also scored crucial points with Lance Stroll bringing home seventh and Fernando Alonso eighth, and Alex Albon led Williams, going from P15 to fifth-place. But Carlos Sainz, the other Williams driver, was left surprised that he was penalized during the race for a collision with Liam Lawson.
Before the paddock heads to Monza for the Italian Grand Prix, where Hamilton will face a five-place grid penalty, we have answered several of your questions that arose from the Dutch GP weekend.
Editor’s note: Questions have been lightly edited for clarity and brevity.
How does Leclerc’s skirmish with Russell on Lap 32 of this race not earn him at least a time penalty? — Shad R.
It’s an odd one when you look at the stewards’ post-race reports. Watching the broadcast, it looked as if Leclerc was entirely off the track when he navigated past Russell down the inside of Turn 12 for fifth place. The Ferrari driver had said over the radio, “Turn 11, 12, he doesn’t leave the space. So, he cannot complain.” But Russell saw it differently, asking Mercedes over the radio, “I mean, he was off the track, surely?”
According to the report of the race, race control deleted Leclerc’s Lap 32 time because he didn’t use the track at Turn 12. For those who don’t know how the track limit infringement process works, race control monitors the matter, and the stewards step in if there’s a marginal call. And sometimes, these documents do get overruled by later decisions, which is what happened on Sunday.
Stewards summoned both Leclerc and Russell post-race, as the Ferrari driver allegedly caused a collision during the battle, but determined they would take no further action. It’s worth noting that the stewards said, “We also looked into whether Car 16 (Leclerc) remained on the track or left the track at Turn 12. The available evidence was inconclusive as to whether Car 16 left the track. Both team representatives were in agreement that there was no clear evidence that Car 16 had left the track.”
As for whether Leclerc caused a collision, both he and Russell informed the stewards that it was a racing incident, and the group reached the same conclusion after reviewing the available evidence. — Madeline Coleman
What is up with the race stewards? For now, forget about the lame penalty to Carlos Sainz today, but it seems they defer more and more penalties until after the race. — Tom S.
The Dutch GP was one of the busiest races for the stewards in a while. There were four different incidents to review after the checkered flag: the Leclerc/Russell collision at Turn 12; four drivers allegedly going too slowly behind the safety car; Hamilton’s failure to slow for yellows on the reconnaissance lap; and Gabriel Bortoleto’s car allegedly being driven in an unsafe condition due to his loose front wing endplate.
That’s in addition to the in-race rulings on Antonelli hitting Leclerc (10 seconds), Antonelli speeding in the pit lane (five seconds), and Sainz’s collision with Lawson (10 seconds).
Answering your question about deferring penalties to post-race, Tom, the stewards will often push stuff they don’t deem time-sensitive to after the checkered flag to give them more time to look at the evidence, as well as speak to the parties involved. In the case of Hamilton’s speeding on the reconnaissance laps to the grid, because a grid drop for the next round was always the likely sanction and not something that would impact him during the race, it could be postponed until after the race instead of drawing attention away from ruling on proceedings on the track.
Concerning Sainz’s “lame penalty”, it is worth highlighting. My immediate reaction was that a 10-second punishment seemed harsh for what was effectively a racing incident. Sainz was particularly upset on the radio and, while biting his tongue post-race, criticized Lawson and said he’d look for clarity from the stewards. “What I’ve seen today and what I’ve suffered today is something that concerns me for myself, but for the other drivers and for motorsport in general,” Sainz said.
Lawson pointed out that Sainz had been on the outside and failed to get his car completely alongside, which, per the racing guidelines, meant there was no entitlement to space. “We all know this,” Lawson said. “On a restart, it’s super-slippery, (with) cold tires, it’s fine to go for the move, it’s just risky.” — Luke Smith
Carlos Sainz had a frustrating Dutch GP (James Sutton/Getty Images)
What are you hearing about the 2026 cars? I hear moaning from the drivers, but I’d love to hear your opinion. — Chris L.
The overhaul of the car design rules for 2026 is such a vast unknown for everyone. Years of work have gone into refining the regulations, bringing them to a point where the whole paddock is on a similar page — though it’ll never please everyone — with a focus on sustainable fuels, increased electrical power and the return of active aerodynamics.
So far, the drivers have been lukewarm in their thoughts about the 2026 cars from their early simulator runs. But in every case, there is always the caveat of “…but we don’t know for certain what it’ll be like.” It will be almost another five months before the first 2026 cars hit the track, which is a lifetime in F1 development terms, especially at the start of a regulation cycle when gains are greater.
The standout observation I’ve heard one driver share privately is just how different F1’s 2026 fleet will be from what we have now, that after four seasons of the existing generation of cars, it has felt refreshing to sample something in the simulator that requires such a different approach to energy management and active aerodynamics, which will replace DRS going into next year.
It’s far too early for us to cast judgment on what 2026 will be like from a spectacle point of view. Change always brings about a level of unease and discomfort, but F1 teams have honed their skills in adjusting quickly through the years to whatever challenges are thrown at them. The feeling needs to be that this is a shift that should be embraced and seen as an opportunity, not pooh-poohed before a car has been produced and put on a race track. — Smith
Does the 107 percent qualification rule still exist? — Ch S.
The short answer is yes, it does! I previously wrote about this rule for our explainer series, Between the Racing Lines, and the history behind its creation is fascinating. That being said, it is a bit archaic in the sense that it’s not absolutely necessary for this current field of drivers and teams.
The rule is there to prevent drivers who are too slow from competing. It was introduced in 1996, then dropped for a period in the early 2000s before re-entering the scene in 2011, following complaints that the backmarker teams were struggling with pace. Nowadays, this isn’t a common complaint — drivers who fail to set a qualifying lap time within 107 percent of the fastest Q1 time are still allowed to compete, thanks to their practice times.
But the teams still need to go through the formality of requesting that the stewards allow their drivers to compete if they fail to nail that crucial time during qualifying. Aston Martin and Stroll were the latest to fall victim to this after the Canadian crashed out in qualifying at Zandvoort, unable to set a single flying lap before his wreck. Because he set “satisfactory” practice time earlier in the weekend, Stroll was allowed to compete on Sunday (and scored points in the process).
The article containing this rule in the sporting regulations is number 39.4(b), if you’re curious. — Coleman
What is the latest information about the 2026-and-beyond U.S. TV coverage, post-ESPN’s current contract? I’m really hoping it’s not Apple TV. — Anonymous U.
Not much has changed since Andrew Marchand and I reported in July that F1 is leaning towards a deal with Apple. The bids differ substantially, with a multi-million-dollar gap between the two. Still, ESPN remains in the mix, sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, have indicated to The Athletic. It’s still a waiting game to hear who officially will have the U.S. broadcasting rights from 2026.
If F1 does partner with Apple, it would be straying from its history of using traditional broadcasting outlets in the United States. Fox aired the sport on its Speed network from 2001 to 2012, and NBC held the rights for four years from 2013. But the landscape has changed, even since ESPN began showing it in 2017. Liberty Media bought F1 that same year and has really opened up the paddock, which allowed projects such as Netflix’s “Drive to Survive” and “F1: The Movie” to take off. Interest is booming, and this chapter of F1’s story is about engaging new audiences. — Coleman
(Top photo of George Russell and Charles Leclerc: Hoch Zwei)