Lawson reveals 'biggest challenge' of Red Bull switch: Two cars, two worlds

When Liam Lawson stepped out of the RB21 at Zandvoort with P7 in hand, few realized that race was not just a result — it was a rare natural experiment in Formula 1. One driver, two completely different cars, and only days to adapt. "The car is different everywhere, other than the power unit," Lawson said, and that statement opened a door of analysis that telemetry data cannot answer on its own.

I have been following Formula 1 since 2026, and in over three decades of observation, I have rarely seen a situation that allows a direct comparison of two cars from the same group by the same driver in the same season. This is the cleanest A/B comparison possible in F1: the same driver, the same tires, the same circuit, but two different chassis. And Lawson, with rare frankness, described exactly what he felt.

Context: One injury, three changes

The story begins with a wrist injury to Isack Hadjar at Racing Bulls. The absence of this rookie driver triggered a chain of changes: Lawson was called up to Red Bull for Zandvoort, and after Hadjar failed to recover in time, Lawson continued in the RB21 at Monza. Meanwhile, Yuki Tsunoda — who had been promoted to Red Bull after the Japanese Grand Prix — was moved back to Racing Bulls to fill the vacancy.

Lawson learned the news on Wednesday, enough time for a simulator session and normal preparation. But what made him call this the "biggest challenge" was not the short preparation time, but having to prepare for both cars simultaneously. He talked to both teams' engineers to stay ready for every scenario.

What does this mean strategically? In a network of decisions — who drives which car, when, with what preparation — the knot lies in the driver's mental preparation process. Lawson not only had to learn a new car; he had to keep his mind ready for two different cars, with two different balance philosophies, two different steering feedbacks.

Two cars, two worlds

What makes this story technically special is that Lawson is one of the very few drivers in the paddock who has driven both cars of the same group in the same season. "Diagrams don't lie, but the people reading them can." This saying of mine has long been my guiding principle in approaching data. And in this case, the comparison diagram between the RB21 and Racing Bulls is telling a very clear story: these two cars are different everywhere, except for the power unit.

What does this mean technically? In the ground-effect era that began in 2026, the chassis — not the engine — is the decisive performance variable. The fact that two cars share the same power unit but are "different everywhere" shows that aerodynamic and mechanical design is what creates the biggest difference.

Lawson described the most impressive attribute of the RB21 as "high-speed grip." This is a structural characteristic, not a setup result. The RB21 is designed to generate downforce efficiently through the floor and diffuser at high speed — a design philosophy consistent with Max Verstappen's dominance at high-speed circuits.

But it is the difference in "feedback through the steering and the way the car moves around" that Lawson struggled with most. This is not just about downforce levels, but a completely different balance philosophy between the two cars. Racing Bulls may have a more forgiving balance, with a wider operating window — but at the cost of a lower performance ceiling. The RB21, conversely, is optimized for absolute performance, with a much narrower operating window.

This is a classic trade-off in race car design: a car with a wider operating window (more forgiving balance) often sacrifices maximum downforce. Conversely, a car optimized for absolute performance will have a narrow operating window, requiring the driver to drive much more precisely.

This explains why Lawson said the two cars are "very different to drive, even in the simulator." A simulator with fidelity high enough to reproduce the differences in characteristics between two cars is an incredibly valuable development tool. It allows engineers to test changes without going to the track, saving time and cost.

The challenge of parallel preparation

What made Lawson call this the "biggest challenge" was not just the technical difference, but the preparation process. He had to talk to both teams' engineers, keep his mind ready for both scenarios. This is a significant cognitive burden.

"Every race is a network; I only find the knot." In this case, the knot is not in an overtake or a pit stop decision — but in the driver's mental preparation process itself.

Notably, Lawson finished P7 at Zandvoort in a Sprint weekend — a format with only one practice session. This means he had only about one hour of practice before qualifying. For a driver trying to adapt to a completely different car, this is a huge disadvantage.

However, P7 also shows something important: the RB21's performance floor is very high, even when the driver is still learning. If Lawson could achieve P7 with such limited preparation, the car's true potential could be much greater.

I remember my days on the coaching staff at Melbourne Victory, when I used GPS data to analyze player positions. Data told me what was happening, but it couldn't tell me why. Why did a player choose that position? Why did he decide to pass at that moment? The answers lay outside the scope of data — they lay in human emotion, intuition, and confidence.

Similarly, data from Zandvoort shows P7 — but the story behind that number is a driver trying to understand a completely unfamiliar car in the shortest possible time. When a driver is unsure about a car's feedback, he drives more cautiously, setting higher safety margins. This means Lawson's P7 could be a "safe" result — and as he begins to trust the car more, the real speed may emerge.

Monza: A second opportunity

Monza will be a normal weekend with three practice sessions — a significant advantage compared to Zandvoort. Lawson acknowledged this: "Now it should be easier to adapt, with three practice sessions and a more normal weekend."

With three practice sessions, Lawson will have about two additional hours of track time to adapt to the car's balance and steering feedback. This could make a big difference in the weekend's outcome.

But Monza also presents a different challenge. It is the lowest-downforce circuit on the calendar, testing straight-line speed and braking stability more than high-speed cornering grip. The strength Lawson identified in the RB21 — "high-speed grip" — will be less relevant at Monza.

However, the RB21's aerodynamic efficiency should still translate into competitive straight-line speed. And with three practice sessions, Lawson will have more time to adapt to the car's balance and steering feedback.

Another important strategic point: Monza is known for high tire degradation, particularly on the front-left under braking. A driver still adapting to a car's balance may struggle more with tire management than with raw lap time. This means the race itself could be a bigger challenge than qualifying.

The contrarian view

This is what I want to emphasize: P7 at Zandvoort may be understating the RB21's true potential. When a driver has only days of preparation and a single practice session, his result reflects more about the adaptation process than the car's actual performance.

"Data is a refuge, but stories are home." Data from Zandvoort shows P7 — but the story behind that number is a driver trying to understand a completely unfamiliar car in the shortest possible time.

And there is a factor that data cannot measure: confidence. When a driver is unsure about a car's feedback, he drives more cautiously, setting higher safety margins. This means Lawson's P7 could be a "safe" result — and as he begins to trust the car more, the real speed may emerge.

I have witnessed this many times in my career. When a player moves to a new team, he often plays cautiously in the first few matches. But when he begins to understand the system, understand his teammates, understand what is expected of him — then the real speed emerges. Lawson may be at that stage.

The evaluation for 2026

Behind the story of Hadjar's injury is a bigger picture: Red Bull is using this period to evaluate drivers for 2026. With the major regulation change in 2026 — including new power units and new chassis rules — Red Bull needs to lock in its driver lineup early to maximize development continuity.

The constant swapping of Lawson and Tsunoda between the two teams is not random. This is an extended evaluation, where Racing Bulls is becoming a de facto evaluation platform for 2026 driver decisions.

"On the tactical map, emotion is the coordinate people often forget." Tsunoda, moved back to Racing Bulls for the second time in a season, is certainly facing a mental shock. Being publicly demoted like this is a very clear signal of the organization's lack of trust.

But it could also create strong motivation. Tsunoda may drive with high determination at Racing Bulls, knowing every result is being closely monitored.

And there is a bigger question: Does Red Bull really need a second driver who can compete with Verstappen, or just someone who can consistently score points? In recent history, Red Bull has had many different second drivers — from Sergio Perez to Lawson, Tsunoda — but none has truly been able to compete with Verstappen consistently.

Tsunoda: Silent hero or victim of the system?

Yuki Tsunoda is one of the most notable stories of this season. Promoted to Red Bull after the Japanese Grand Prix — a decision made in front of the home crowd's support — Tsunoda had the opportunity to prove himself in the top car. But just a few races later, he was moved back to Racing Bulls.

Being publicly demoted like this is a major mental shock. In a sport where confidence plays a crucial role, being "demoted" can seriously affect a driver's performance.

But Tsunoda has a strength that few recognize: resilience. He has been criticized many times in his career — from his early days at AlphaTauri (now Racing Bulls) — but has always found a way to overcome. Being moved back to Racing Bulls could be a powerful motivation for him to prove he deserves a place at Red Bull.

However, the question is: Does Tsunoda still have a chance to return to Red Bull? With Lawson getting a second opportunity, and Hadjar recovering from injury, the competition for the second Red Bull seat is becoming increasingly fierce.

Impact on the championship

The instability in Red Bull's lineup could have consequences bigger than what we see on the surface. In a tight constructors' championship battle, every point matters. And every race with a temporary driver in the second car is a race where Red Bull is not maximizing its potential.

Imagine if Lawson can only achieve P7 instead of P5 or P4 — that is a difference of 6 to 10 points in the constructors' standings. In a tight season, these points could be decisive.

I have seen this in football: when a team has to use backup players due to injury, they often lose stability and quality. Similarly, in F1, using temporary drivers can reduce a team's performance.

Looking ahead

As we head toward the 2026 season with completely new regulations — including new power units and new chassis rules — Red Bull needs a stable lineup. Constantly changing drivers not only affects current results, but can also affect the development of the car for the future.

A driver needs time to understand a car, to provide accurate feedback to engineers, and to help the team develop the car in the right direction. If Red Bull constantly changes drivers, they may never have the continuity needed to develop an optimal car.

This is a lesson I learned from football: stability is the key to success. A team needs time to build a system, and constantly changing personnel will break that process.

Conclusion

As Lawson enters the Monza weekend, he is not just driving a car — he is participating in an extended evaluation that spans months, where every lap matters. With three practice sessions and a normal weekend, he has a better opportunity to prove he deserves a long-term place at Red Bull.

But the bigger question remains: Is this lineup instability weakening Red Bull's position in the constructors' championship? Every race with a temporary driver in the second car is a race where Red Bull is not maximizing its potential.

Monza will give us the first answer. But the final answer — about the 2026 lineup — will have to wait. And in the world of Formula 1, where every decision is a complex network, I can only find the most notable knots.