Temporada F1 2026 🏎

[GoVal]

RacingNews365.nl @Racingnews365 · 24 abr.

Red Bull test Ferrari's bizarre 'Macarena-wing' op Silverstone 👀🚨



El alerón en acción ---->>>>    https://x.com/Racingnews365/status/2047613702837285004

[GoVal]

Nachez @Nachez98 · 24 abr.

🚨 Así cambiará la F1 actual con el cambio del reglamento

📈 McLaren ha simulado una vuelta en Australia con las nuevas reglas (F1 2026 2.0) y lo ha comparado con su vuelta de Qualy real (F1 2026 1.0) y estas son las diferencias

1⃣ Velocidad inferior en recta de meta pero sin perder velocidad antes de la T1

2⃣ Mayor distancia de despliegue de energía, con mayor velocidad

3⃣ Menor velocidad punta en la recta larga, con una caída algo menos pronunciada y con mayor velocidad justo antes de la curva

4⃣ Al igual que en el punto 2, llega hasta la curva manteniendo la velocidad ya que ahora puede mantener el despliegue de energía

5⃣ Mayor velocidad antes de la frenada, al no tener necesidad de recargar

6⃣ Despliegue menos potente y por lo tanto menor aceleración al inicio de la recta de meta

👉 En definitiva, vuelta más lenta pero un poco más normal (aunque no del todo ni mucho menos)

👉 Los pilotos tendrán que llevar el coche al límite, ya que el agarre en curva será menor que en la F1 2026 1.0, debido a la menor carga aero de los coches de 2026 y la mayor velocidad de paso por curva de la F1 2026 2.0

📰 The Race

[GoVal]

Artículo en español de las modificaciones aprobadas para esta temporada.


OFICIAL: La Fórmula 1 cambia el reglamento tras los primeros Grandes Premios para pulir los defectos

Iván Fernández | @fernischumi | 20 Abr 2026


Era prácticamente un hecho. La FIA se presentó en el parón forzoso de la Fórmula 1 de este mes de abril teniendo muy claro que el reglamento iba a tener que sufrir ciertos ajustes, algo que confirmó precisamente después de la primera de las reuniones. Finalmente, este 20 de abril, día en el que estaba programada el último encuentro para estudiar las distintas posibilidad ya con los principales mandatarios de las distintas partes afectadas. Así ha sido, la FIA acaba de confirmar que: "todas las partes interesadas han acordado mejoras en el reglamento de la FIA de Fórmula 1 para 2026".

A la reunión de este lunes han acudido tanto los responsables de la FIA, como los directores de equipo, los directores ejecutivos de los fabricantes de unidades de potencia y la FOM. Basándose en los datos recopilados en los tres primeros Grandes Premios de la temporada, finalmente se han acordado una serie de propuestas que deberán aplicarse ya desde el próximo Gran Premio de Miami, programado para el primer fin de semana de mayo, siempre y cuando reciba el definitivo visto bueno por parte del Consejo Mundial del Motor de la FIA, algo que se da por hecho después de que en las conversaciones hayan participado todos los actores principales.

    Me gustaría elogiar a todos los que forman parte del ecosistema de la Fórmula 1 (el personal de la FIA, los equipos, los pilotos y los fabricantes de unidades de potencia) por el trabajo constructivo y colaborativo realizado en un período de tiempo muy corto. Si bien nos hemos enfrentado a un hueco inesperado en el calendario debido a circunstancias ajenas al deporte, todas las partes han mantenido su pleno compromiso de actuar en el mejor interés de la Fórmula 1. Más que nunca, los pilotos han estado en el centro de estas conversaciones, y me gustaría agradecerles sus valiosas aportaciones a lo largo de todo este proceso. La seguridad y la imparcialidad deportiva siguen siendo las máximas prioridades de la FIA. Estos cambios se han introducido para abordar los problemas detectados en los eventos inaugurales y para garantizar la integridad y la calidad continuas de la competición. Ahora esperamos con ilusión el resto de lo que promete ser una emocionante temporada 2026 – Mohammed Ben Sulayem



Los cambios que se aplicarán en la Fórmula 1 a partir de Miami:

Clasificación: promoción del rendimiento

   * Se han realizado ajustes en los parámetros de gestión de energía, incluyendo una reducción de la recarga máxima permitida de 8 MJ a 7 MJ, con el objetivo de disminuir la recolección excesiva de energía y fomentar una conducción más constante a máxima velocidad. Este cambio busca reducir la duración máxima del superclipping a aproximadamente 2-4 segundos por vuelta.

   * La potencia máxima del cargador Superclipping se ha incrementado a 350 kW, frente a los 250 kW anteriores, lo que reduce aún más el tiempo de recarga y la carga de trabajo del conductor en la gestión energética. Esta función también se aplicará en condiciones de carrera.

   * El número de eventos en los que se pueden aplicar límites de energía alternativos más bajos se ha incrementado de 8 a 12 carreras, lo que permite una mayor adaptación a las características del circuito.


Carrera: mayor seguridad y consistencia en el rendimiento.

   * La potencia máxima disponible a través del Boost en condiciones de carrera ahora está limitada a +150 kW (o al nivel de potencia actual del coche en el momento de la activación, si este es superior), lo que limita las diferencias de rendimiento repentinas.

   * La potencia de activación del MGU-K se mantiene en 350 kW en las zonas clave de aceleración (desde la salida de la curva hasta el punto de frenado, incluidas las zonas de adelantamiento), pero se limitará a 250 kW en otras partes de la vuelta.

   * Estas medidas están diseñadas para reducir los diferenciales de velocidad excesivos, manteniendo al mismo tiempo las oportunidades de adelantamiento y las características generales de rendimiento.


Inicio de la carrera: mecanismos de seguridad mejorados

   * Se ha desarrollado un nuevo sistema de «detección de arranque con baja potencia», capaz de identificar coches con una aceleración anormalmente baja poco después de soltar el embrague.

   * En estos casos, se activará un despliegue automático del MGU-K para garantizar un nivel mínimo de aceleración y mitigar los riesgos relacionados con la salida sin introducir ninguna ventaja deportiva.

   * Se está implementando un sistema de advertencia visual asociado, que activa luces intermitentes (traseras y laterales) en los vehículos afectados para alertar a los conductores que circulan detrás.

   * También se ha implementado un reinicio del contador de energía al comienzo de la vuelta de formación para corregir una inconsistencia del sistema previamente identificada.


Condiciones de mojado: mejora de la seguridad y la visibilidad.

   * Tras recibir comentarios de los pilotos, se han aumentado las temperaturas de la manta térmica para los neumáticos intermedios con el fin de mejorar el agarre inicial y el rendimiento de los neumáticos en condiciones de lluvia.

   * Se reducirá el despliegue máximo del ERS, lo que limitará el par motor y mejorará el control del coche en condiciones de baja adherencia.

   * Los sistemas de luces traseras se han simplificado, con señales visuales más claras y consistentes para mejorar la visibilidad y el tiempo de reacción de los conductores que circulan detrás en condiciones adversas.


https://www.diariomotor.com/competicion/noticia/oficial-la-formula-1-cambia-el-reglamento/

[McHouserphy]

Se acaban las vacaciones ...
Y volvemos al cole media hora antes ... 
Y ahora resulta que nos cambian las variables constantes , por constantes variables , así de sopetón

  

[McHouserphy]

RacingNews365.nl @Racingnews365 · 24 abr.

Red Bull test Ferrari's bizarre 'Macarena-wing' op Silverstone 👀🚨

El alerón en acción ---->>>>    https://x.com/Racingnews365/status/2047613702837285004

Le cuadra nejor el nombre de ... : "Aserejé"    

[McHouserphy]

Nachez @Nachez98 · 24 abr.

🚨 Así cambiará la F1 actual con el cambio del reglamento

📈 McLaren ha simulado una vuelta en Australia con las nuevas reglas (F1 2026 2.0) y lo ha comparado con su vuelta de Qualy real (F1 2026 1.0) y estas son las diferencias

1⃣ Velocidad inferior en recta de meta pero sin perder velocidad antes de la T1
2⃣ Mayor distancia de despliegue de energía, con mayor velocidad
3⃣ Menor velocidad punta en la recta larga, con una caída algo menos pronunciada y con mayor velocidad justo antes de la curva
4⃣ Al igual que en el punto 2, llega hasta la curva manteniendo la velocidad ya que ahora puede mantener el despliegue de energía
5⃣ Mayor velocidad antes de la frenada, al no tener necesidad de recargar
6⃣ Despliegue menos potente y por lo tanto menor aceleración al inicio de la recta de meta

👉 En definitiva, vuelta más lenta pero un poco más normal (aunque no del todo ni mucho menos)
👉 Los pilotos tendrán que llevar el coche al límite, ya que el agarre en curva será menor que en la F1 2026 1.0, debido a la menor carga aero de los coches de 2026 y la mayor velocidad de paso por curva de la F1 2026 2.0
📰 The Race

   
Es una mejora del modo " Diésel "  ,al solo  " Diésel"

[GoVal]

Nachez @Nachez98 · 6h

🤔 ¿Alguien ha estado haciendo trampas durante el 'Parc Fermé'?

🔄 La FIA ha actualizado la normativa 2026 y han introducido los siguientes cambios al 'Parc Fermé':

🔹 Se ha obligado a los equipos a instalar cámaras en el garaje que estén operativas en todo momento y con vista a todo el coche durante el 'Parc Fermé'

🔹 Se ha modificado el artículo del 'Parc Fermé' para ser más restrictivo.
Ahora dice así: "ninguna parte del coche puede ser reemplazada o modificada y no se pueden realizar cambios en la configuración del coche"

⁉️ RARO

[GoVal]

Daniel Valente 🏎� @F1GuyDan · 17h

F1 drivers will now not be allowed to use Boost mode in low grip conditions (wet weather), according to the latest changes to the FIA sporting regulations, which were updated today.

[llumia]

Gary Anderson: F1's engine numbers still don't add up

I'm sorry to go over it all again but the question I would ask is when Formula 1's 2026 regulations were put in place, how did anyone think that they could get anywhere near a 50/50 hybrid power split over a lap when using the same size input and output motor - the 350kW MGU-K -  to do both?

We know that 50/50 was never really true, it was probably more like 370kW from the internal combustion engine and initially 350kW from the MGU-K.

So working on those figures, that means the MGU-K could supply that level of power from a 4MJ battery pack for roughly 11.5 seconds before the torch went out.

Looking at the magic of how that was supposed to be possible is where I start scratching my head.

On a fairly average generic circuit the driver wants full power for around 60% of the lap and they are braking hard for roughly 15% of the lap. Which leaves 25% in no man's land. Yes, some regeneration might be possible during that period but in reality not much. For simplicity let's use 5% of that 25%, so that brings us to potentially being able to harvest for 20% of the lap.

So if we look at those percentages and base it over a 100 second lap we get 60 seconds of potential driver-requested full power. To achieve that from the 4MJ battery pack you need to charge it up 5.2 times per lap (11.5s x 5.2 = 60s) and to achieve that you only have 20 seconds of potentially using that same MGU-K at its maximum regeneration output, in other words using it as the rear brakes when on the brake pedal and on top of that during that braking period driving the engine against the MGU-K to maximise the regeneration - basically using 22 of the multi-million dollar power unit packages as a generator (that's sending out a fantastic signal to this ever changing world's push for a global emissions reduction).

This is where it has never made sense to me. Over a lap you're requesting full power for 60 seconds, braking for 20 seconds so in effect 33% of the lap is your maximum potential for harvesting, and that's being generous. So then to fill in the gaps comes lift and coast, and the dreaded super clipping. We all know what we and the drivers think of that requirement.

So to have any chance of balancing the books the electrical output kilowatts that partly power the car need to be reduced dramatically. If you just take basic figures, that theoretical 350kW needs to be divided by the 5.2 I calculated above, which would equal roughly 70kW.  Add that to the 370kW from the ICE and it's a total power unit output of 440kW as opposed to the initial declaration of 700kW.

Putting that into good old fashioned horsepower that's 590bhp as opposed to 940bhp -  however we need to remember that 940bhp is (or was) only being produced for a very, very limited amount of time.

Now this is just one snapshot across one theoretical circuit that I have created but you have to start somewhere. And that somewhere should be to come up with a proper theoretical circuit based on actual data from the 2021 season before we had the high grip ground effect cars, satisfy that theoretical circuit requirement for driver requested full power, full braking and part throttle potential harvesting and then you have a potential balance of payments system.

Below are the key figures from the FIA announcement of 2027 changes after Friday's discussions and they go nowhere near enough to eliminate the need (on most circuits) for massive lift and coast sections and/or super clipping.

"The measures agreed in principle today for 2027 would see a nominal increase in Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) power by ~50kW with a fuel-flow increase and a nominal reduction of the Energy Recovery System (ERS) deployment power by ~50kW.

"It was agreed that further detailed discussion in technical groups comprising teams and power unit manufacturers was required before the final package was decided."

I have made many mistakes in my life but the one thing I tried not to do was make the same mistake twice. What I am seeing from the above statement is that the powers to be don't seem to have taken in account how dramatic the problem they have got themselves into really is.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/gary-anderson-f1s-engine-numbers-still-dont-add-up/

[llumia]

The real story behind Red Bull wing that eclipsed Ferrari's



When Red Bull debuted its rotating rear wing at the Miami Grand Prix it immediately eclipsed the Formula 1 team that had initially earned such fanfare for the same thing.

Ferrari turned heads in pre-season testing back in February with a rear wing that did not simply open on the straights but fully rotated the top part to create a bigger opening and theoretically greater drag reduction.

It was rightly lauded as innovative, novel and creative. But, as it turns out, it was not unique.

As Ferrari's broke cover more than two months ago, spawning names like the 'Macarena' or 'flip-flop wing', and nothing like it had been seen since, the emergence of a Red Bull equivalent seemed like a clear case of one team taking inspiration from another.

The order in which they appeared meant nothing more than simple chronology, though. What transpired in Miami - two different teams racing rear wings that turn upside-down, for the first time, in the same grand prix - was a remarkable coincidence.

Ferrari had spent a long time trying to get its design ready to race, in the public eye. The wing appeared in testing and again in China, where it was withdrawn from the car. Ferrari's issue was getting the upper part of the wing to complete its revolution in 0.4 seconds, as stipulated in the regulations. It seemed to cause at least one notable issue for Lewis Hamilton in practice when re-attaching too slowly under braking.

The Japanese Grand Prix came and went without the wing being raced, before Ferrari tested a revised version at Monza during F1's April break. This provided ample time for Ferrari to complete its troubleshooting, and so the wing was finally ready to be raced in Miami.

Amazingly, Red Bull had been going through the same process at the same time, just in the background.

There were hints of Red Bull seemingly running its version of Ferrari's wing during a Silverstone filming day with the RB22, where its major Miami upgrade package was trialled on-track for the first time.

When it was finally shown off to the world in Miami, it turned out to be a different interpretation to Ferrari's.

Whereas Ferrari's rotates front to back, flipping round quite dramatically, Red Bull's rotates up and over from the rear - a simpler motion but resulting in a visibly greater opening.

Red Bull's also utilises a centre-mounted actuator on the mainplane itself, rather than in the corners like Ferrari, which the trailing edge of the wing sits on top of when inverted.



Red Bull team principal Laurent Mekies was keen to give his designers credit.

"As much as you will not believe me, I have to say, in fairness to the guys, they came up with that concept far, far before we hit the track and we saw what everybody else had been doing," he said.

There are no points for being first to show a design off to the world - at least if that design doesn't make it onto the car early enough to deliver an actual performance advantage in the races.

And rather than be annoyed that Ferrari beat it to the punch, internally Red Bull was reassured that someone else had pursued a similar design, as it underlined the merit in the idea beyond its own observations from windtunnel testing.

The Race understands that Red Bull first started working on its version of the wing in November last year when conversations with the FIA made it clear the new regulations around a different kind of movable rear wing for the 2026 cars invited such an interpretation.

The old drag reduction system rules, as they existed through to 2025, meant the only aerodynamic motion available was a gap cracking open between the mainplane and the flap, like a letterbox. Teams had a permitted slot gap range of between 10mm and 85mm - the latter setting a clearly defined maximum.

The 2026 rules are different. One key Red Bull figure said that the critical part of what makes this design possible is the rules stipulate that, when viewed from below, the axis of rotation must be fully obscured by the flap. The wing must also switch between the two fixed positions in no more than 0.4s, and have a minimum distance between the two rear wing profiles of 8-12mm.

In other words, the rules have changed from defining how the rear wing must open to defining the open and closed positions. How they get there, and what size gap they create, is free for greater interpretation.

Red Bull worked on this for months and had planned to introduce the system well before Miami. It targeted pre-season testing, and as recently as Suzuka, but could not get it to work reliably. The only difference to Ferrari is nobody saw that - plus, Red Bull had other car problems emerge very early, even back in the January shakedown at Barcelona. So there were other priorities ahead of getting this rear wing to work.

Even when it was ready, there was still a degree of risk in what Red Bull opted to do once it was confident in the design.

Miami featured a comprehensive upgrade package for the RB22, including updates to the floor, sidepods, and top bodywork. Bringing that many changes simultaneously, alongside an entirely novel rear wing mechanism, was an acknowledged risk.

But Red Bull was evidently satisfied by its work behind the scenes and what Silverstone validated - and Miami's track layout meant the benefits would be immediately felt, with two extremely long back stretches where better drag reduction would be most welcome.

The package worked. Max Verstappen was immediately competitive and Red Bull found itself right back in the thick of pole and podium fights. And the wing was part of that.

It might even have proven immediately more beneficial than Ferrari's - which, while potentially better when in cornering mode because the wing flaps are clear from any disruption from the actuator, does not shed as much drag.

Though engine performance has a clear impact on straightline speed, it could be telling that Hamilton seemed perturbed by a perceived deficit to other cars on the straights. Given Ferrari's rear wing should confer a bigger drag reduction than the nine teams with conventional designs, that is slightly surprising.

Looking ahead to the next race in Canada, Hamilton said: "We're going to another track with long straights and we're losing three-to-four tenths just on straightline speed.

"We need to see if we can cut some drag before the next race because on the straight we've got that deficit, so we've got to have a look into that."

After the understandable initial assumption that Red Bull copied Ferrari, could it be that the opposite happens now the designs have been raced and their relative effectiveness has provisionally been measured?

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/red-bull-rear-wing-f1-2026-ferrari-macarena/

[llumia]

The strange nature of Audi's early F1 problems

Audi's start to life in Formula 1 has been underwhelming in terms of results, the team scoring just two points so far. Yet pace in itself hasn't been the trouble. Instead, it's been weaknesses in other areas that have prevented it from achieving the results its speed would merit.

Unfortunately, in F1 speed alone is not enough and there are other problems that mean what's been the seventh-fastest car on average has produced nothing more than Gabriel Bortoleto's ninth place in the season-opening Australian Grand Prix. That leaves it ninth in the constructors' championship - rather than in the mix for sixth with Haas and Racing Bulls.

The recent Miami Grand Prix weekend encapsulated the problem, with the Audi R26 leading the four-team midfield gaggle behind the big four and Alpine in both qualifying sessions yet leaving the USA with nothing more than a 12th place in the grand prix.

Unreliability has been the biggest problem. Nico Hulkenberg failed to start the sprint race in Miami after his car caught fire on the way to the grid - the third time in 12 races this year that an Audi has failed to start. Racing director Allan McNish indicated that was more a simple operational error than a fundamental reliability one, with a fluid leak the cause.

"There was fluid and that went onto the exhaust and [caused] the fire," said McNish when asked by The Race to explain what happened. "There was a problem prior to going out. We thought it had actually been sorted out but it hadn't been and there was more fluid in there. It's quite a simplistic explanation."

That's the kind of mistake that needs to be eliminated. The same applies to the spike in intake air pressure exceeding the 4.8 barA limit that led to Bortoleto being excluded from 11th in the sprint race. This was attributed to high temperatures and described by McNish as "not performance-beneficial", but he also accepted that "the penalty is in or out and that's the rules".

There were also reliability problems related to the main event. Bortoleto was late starting qualifying, managing only to get one slow lap in thanks to a brake problem that subsequently led to a small fire, after a gearbox-related problem was detected late on. That was partly down to the distraction of Audi having to repair Hulkenberg's car after his fire.

The grand prix was short-lived for Hulkenberg, who suffered front wing damage after leaving his nose in on the inside of Carlos Sainz at the first corner, pitted for a new one and then retired after seven laps. This was unrelated to the contact, instead the result of getting stuck in first gear under the safety car, a problem referred to by McNish as a "drivetrain overheating situation".

Bortoleto, meanwhile, drove a strong race but was always up against it when it came to being able to score points. He recovered to 12th place - but as McNish pointed out his performance indicated he would likely have scored points had he started where he should have done on the periphery of the top 10.

"If he had started normally from where he could have qualified, in and around that 11th place, he would have finished in the points. Same with Nico, if we had a clean race there," said McNish.

"Performance-wise, it's clear that through that first sector we were looking strong. When we came up on traffic, it was not as easy to get past people as we'd like, but hopefully we're not in the position where we have to overtake them. Gabi drove a really good race, a balanced race, and managed everything pretty well, and I don't really see him being able to finish any higher."

This also showcases problems with what might be called the raceability of the Audi. It's well-known that the car has start problems thanks to having what is understood to be the largest turbo of the engine manufacturers in F1. That's good for power, but not for responsiveness. That might also play a part in the difficulty in overtaking, although that's also related to the characteristics of its ERS that mean it doesn't have the most efficient deployment.

While work has been done to improve the starts, with plenty of practice starts in the Monza filming day that took place before Miami and tweaks being worked on within what is permitted to mitigate the problem, it's characterised as a long-term project to solve this and likely something that will hinder Audi throughout 2026.

However, reliability and operational errors are a more pressing concern.

"Obviously, we don't want them, that's for sure," said McNish when asked by The Race if these aspects are at a lower level than anticipated even for a new engine manufacturer. "But a lot of PU manufacturers are having some issues, it's not just hitting us. If I look at the starts of Kimi Antonelli, for example, if I look at a few other deployments, there are a lot of areas that everybody is trying to manage and control and also learn about.

"And certainly, we learn about a lot more than some of the others because they are already in the system [of F1] understanding 75% of it. Definitely, we need to tidy up those, there's no question about it."

Audi can partly be excused for this given it's new to F1 power unit manufacturing, although given Sauber was a well-established team operational errors in the garage are less excusable. However, some of these problems are likely legacy ones for a team still rebuilding, and that didn't make the most of its runway into becoming Audi in a deal originally agreed back in 2022.

What's noticeable is that the problems are generally not recurring ones, which supports the notion that it's more about Audi hitting troubles it has not encountered before and must learn about. And as Bortoleto pointed out in Miami, that's partly down to Audi's accumulation of data relative to some rivals being slowed by not having any customer teams.

"I don't think we had a single issue that was similar," said Bortoleto when asked by The Race about Audi's litany of problems. "We had many this weekend, but we haven't had one that was the same. It's just that the first weekend of the year I had zero problems, and then you go to the second weekend, you have three, and then you go and you have zero again. And it keeps going like this.

"Until everyone gets mature with the new regulations, it's not easy to start the season in a good position, and then people create a lot of expectations. But things like this, they are going to happen.

"We are a new manufacturer of engines. We only have two cars. There are teams that are running eight cars with a power unit, so imagine the amount of learning you can get by having that amount of cars. We have only me and Nico, and sometimes one of us is not finishing the race. So we just need to be patient - and when it will be fixed, I'm sure it will be good."

There have been positives for Audi. Its pace has been impressive at times, making it a consistent Q2 car that has also appeared in the final stage of qualifying twice. The power unit performance is credible for a first attempt, and there are upgrades coming in Canada after only introducing some minor updates in Miami to the front brake ducts, front suspension shrouds and the floor edge/diffuser. 

With improved operations and reliability gains, the Audi R26 is a car that has the potential to emerge as a consistent points-scorer as the season progresses.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/audi-f1-2026-problems-reliability/

[GoVal]

Carlos Sainz da una vuelta al Madring.


https://x.com/F1/status/2055604175073927344?s=20

[GoVal]

Un cotilleo-rumore.


Fórmula Directa @FormulaDirecta · 1h

🚨 ÚLTIMA HORA: Esteban Ocon podría no acabar la temporada con Haas

👉 Julianne Cesaroli (@UOLEsporte
): "A Ayao Komatsu no le gusta Ocon. No está contento con su rendimiento actual".

👉 "De hecho, he oído que no está seguro de si Ocon pilotará hasta el final de la temporada".

👉 La brecha entre Bearman y Ocon se ha ampliado este año, lo que estaría afectando a la posición del ferancés dentro del equipo.

🇺🇸 La relación entre Ocon y Komatsu se deterioró durante el fin de semana de Miami.

[F1 Gate]

[McHouserphy]

Un cotilleo-rumore.

Fórmula Directa @FormulaDirecta · 1h
🚨 ÚLTIMA HORA: Esteban Ocon podría no acabar la temporada con Haas
👉 Julianne Cesaroli (@UOLEsporte
): "A Ayao Komatsu no le gusta Ocon. No está contento con su rendimiento actual".
👉 "De hecho, he oído que no está seguro de si Ocon pilotará hasta el final de la temporada".
👉 La brecha entre Bearman y Ocon se ha ampliado este año, lo que estaría afectando a la posición del ferancés dentro del equipo.
🇺🇸 La relación entre Ocon y Komatsu se deterioró durante el fin de semana de Miami.
[F1 Gate]

Que le llame a Sulfufu y le llore un poquito...

[McHouserphy]

Milan, 19 May 2026 | 10:14
The tyre compound selections for Monte Carlo and Barcelona