Who should Verstappen have next to him in 2026?

Oct 31, 2025 | Formula 1

State of play

Red Bull has not yet made a final choice for the three remaining seats in 2026. Only Max Verstappen is fixed. The rest are subject to debate. There are clear preferences and counter-arguments. Key names include Isack Hadjar, Yuki Tsunoda, Liam Lawson and Arvid Lindblad.

Arguments for Hadjar at Red Bull

Hadjar impressed as a rookie this year. He was consistently fast and showed good qualifying performances. That raised hopes that he could support Verstappen well in the long run. Many experts think he should now be given a chance in the main formation. The thinking is: give Hadjar a serious chance and build around him for two years.

Key points pro Hadjar

• Consistent speed as a rookie.
• Potential to grow alongside Verstappen.
• A promotion can bring calm to the staff if the plan is fixed for two years.

Why some want to keep Tsunoda or Lawson

Yuki Tsunoda has more F1 experience. That could be valuable in a season with new regulations. Some opinion leaders think Tsunoda should be given a complete preparation first. If his data is insufficient, that should show he is not fit. That would be a fair way to make a final judgement.

Liam Lawson was given few chances at the top level earlier this year. Supporters believe he deserves a re-match. They cite his potential and the fact that he has already had a difficult start to the season. A second chance could help him regain confidence.

The Lindblad dilemma

Arvid Lindblad shows a lot of speed and has impressed in free practice. Some experts think he has the mental and technical qualities to make a difference. A possible scenario is to put Lindblad in Racing Bulls to grow further there. If he does well, he could move on quickly.

Problems in Red Bull's approach

Many commentators point to structural flaws in Red Bull's talent management. The criticism revolves too much around short-term solutions. No experienced free agent was extracted. There were wrong contract decisions and a lack of oversight. As a result, the organisation now stands with fewer options than desired.

The recommendation is clear: fewer impulsive changes and a clear long-term plan. Red Bull needs to decide whether it can fill two full A teams from its own breeding. If that is not realistic, another strategy is needed. For example: one upstart from its own racing stable and one experienced driver from outside.

Three practice scenarios

Based on the different opinions, here are three viable options:

• Promoted Hadjar to Red Bull. Lindblad to Racing Bulls. Let Racing Bulls choose between Lawson and Tsunoda.
• Leave Hadjar at Racing Bulls for another year. Do give Lawson a second chance with the senior squad.
• Give Tsunoda a normal pre-season and reassess both (Tsunoda and Hadjar) mid-season.

Opinion and conclusion

The least risky choice seems: promote Hadjar and deploy Lindblad structurally in the junior formation. Let Racing Bulls decide who fits best there, Lawson or Tsunoda. At the same time, it is essential that Red Bull changes its approach. Less panic football and more long-term planning. That way, the formation can become stable again in the longer term and Verstappen will actually keep a supportive teammate.

Mexican league criticises Lawson after marshal incident

Oct 31, 2025 | Formula 1

OMDAI escalates discussion on marshals on track

Mexican motorsport federation OMDAI has openly questioned Liam Lawson. At issue was the situation during the second round of the Mexican Grand Prix. Lawson was just coming out of the pit lane and passed marshals who were cleaning up on the track.

On team radio, Lawson reacted with shock. Immediately after the incident, he said he could have killed them. He later called the situation “unacceptable” in the media. The FIA subsequently apologised to Lawson, according to reports.

What does OMDAI say?

OMDAI subsequently published an extensive ten-point statement. That includes stills from Lawson's onboard camera. The federation defends the work of the marshals. OMDAI argues that they were needed on the track to ensure the safety of other drivers.

In addition, OMDAI emphasises the rules around double waved yellow. According to those rules, a driver must clearly reduce his speed, not overtake and be ready to change direction or stop. OMDAI states that Racing Bulls had informed Lawson about the double waved yellow flags.

The federation also writes in capital letters that the marshals should have been clearly visible. OMDAI further reports that Lawson did not break his line while marshals were present on the track. This could be taken as an implicit accusation of not following the rules.

Image and assessment of the incident

Available onboard material shows that Lawson did reduce his speed. The footage also indicates that he was ready to stop. He did not deviate much from his racing line, but drove at low speed and never got close enough to the marshals to make contact.

No official punishment or investigation was launched against Lawson by the race stewards. The stewards, including Mexican representative Fernando Alfonso Oros Trigueros of FEMADAC, seemed to see no reason for follow-up action. The fact that FIA officials apologised reinforced that view.

What does OMDAI's statement mean?

OMDAI's statement suggests a different reading of events. This puts additional pressure on the FIA. The international federation is still investigating the incident and has not yet made its conclusions public.

• OMDAI defends the presence of marshals on the track.
• The federation points out the meaning of double waved yellow: reduce speed and be ready to stop.
• OMDAI argues that Lawson did not interrupt his line and that the marshals should have been visible.
• Onboard footage shows Lawson slowed down and did not get in dangerous proximity to the marshals.
• The FIA is investigating the incident and should now clarify.

The matter is not over with this. OMDAI's move is a clear escalation. The FIA faces the task of presenting the facts clearly and removing any ambiguities.