Formula 3

2025 Chinese Grand Prix/2025 F1 season/Formula 1/Formula 3/Liam Lawson/Yuki Tsunoda

Lawson: Tsunoda ‘had his time

on 21 March 2025

Liam Lawson has rejected claims Red Bull made a mistake by promoting him instead of his 2024 team mate to their senior team this year.

He is competing in his second weekend for Red Bull after the team hired him to replace Sergio Perez at the end of last season.

Yuki Tsunoda, who was Lawson’s team mate at Red Bull’s second team when last season ended, was also in the running for the seat. Having already spent four years in F1, Tsunoda is significantly more experienced than Lawson, who had entered only 11 grands prix before this season began.

Lawson endured a difficult start at Red Bull, dropping out in Q1 at Melbourne, then crashing out of the race when he tried to stay on slick tyres during a shower. He qualified last for this weekend’s sprint race in Shanghai.

Yuki Tsunoda, Liam Lawson, Toyota Racing Series, Highlands Park, 2020 — Tsunoda and Lawson faced each other many times before F1

But Lawson insists he was the better choice for Red Bull and said he had no sympathy for Tsunoda being overlooked. “If I look back over our careers, I was team mates with him in F3 and I beat him,” he told The Telegraph. “In Euroformula I was team mates with him, [and] in New Zealand, and I beat him there.

“Then in F1 last season I think honestly, if I look at all the times he got promoted instead of me in those early years, then no. He’s had his time. Now it’s my time.”

Tsunoda and Lawson were team mates many times during their junior careers. Lawson out-scored Tsunoda in the 2019 Euroformula Open, where both drove for Motopark. The order was reversed in the FIA F3 series that year, though they drove for different teams.

| Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Liam Lawson, Red Bull, Shanghai International Circuit, 2025 — Lawson dropped out in the first round of qualifying today

They faced each other again in the New Zealand Toyota Racing Series the following year. Lawson narrowly failed to reclaim the title he won the year before while Tsunoda, making his debut in the series, finished fourth.

McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown is among those who queried Red Bull’s decision to promote Lawson instead of Tsunoda. Lawson said he “couldn’t care less” about his opinion. “I think he’s still hurt because I talked about his national anthem,” he said.

However Lawson admitted he was impressed by Verstappen’s performance in Melbourne last week. “Just the way he gets up to speed and gets straight on it, you know?” he said. “There’s no delay, there’s no warm-up.”

Miss nothing from RaceFans

Get a daily email with all our latest stories – and nothing else. No marketing, no ads. Sign up here:

Go ad-free for just £1 per month

>> Find out more and sign up

2025 Chinese Grand Prix

Browse all 2025 Chinese Grand Prix articles

Albert Park/Australian Grand Prix/F1/F1 news/Formula 1/Formula 2/Formula 3

Race cancelled due to heavy rain in Melbourne: what does it mean for F1?

Admin

on 16 March 2025

With a one hundred percent chance of rain, a dry Sunday in Melbourne was ruled out from the start. At the crack of dawn, monsoon-like conditions were already unfolding, and the rain continued throughout the morning. As a result, the FIA decided to shorten the first races of the day, the Formula 3 race and the Supercars race, and to postpone the start of the Formula 2 race. But what does this mean for the Grand Prix?

Formula 3

Penalty cancelled in F3 after FIA asks stewards to review decision · RaceFans

Admin

on 15 March 2025

The FIA has taken the unusual step of petitioning its stewards to review a decision taken during a support race at the Australian Grand Prix.

The Formula 3 stewards conducted a review and decided to retract an earlier decision and cancel the accompanying penalty. A 10-second time penalty and two penalty points issued to Alessandro Giusti were overturned.

The confusion began when the three-strong F3 stewarding panel ruled Giusti, who was competing in his first race in the series, overtook his rival Ugo Ugochukwu before the control line when the race was restarting following a Safety Car period.

Over three hours after the penalty was issued, the stewards announced the FIA had asked them to review the decision. This was done under the same ‘Right of Review’ process which is available to teams, including those in F1, though the FIA “waived their right to a hearing,” the stewards noted.

In a written submission to the stewards, the FIA pointed out Giusti in fact passed Ugochukwu shortly before the Safety Car period began, not while it was ending. Giusti subsequently returned the position to Ugochukwu, believing he had taken it incorrectly.

The stewards concluded the FIA’s submission fulfilled the four tests which are applied to Right of Review requests. These are the discovery of a “new element” which is relevant, significant and unavailable at the time the decision was taken.

“The ‘new element’ being considered is the clarification of the precise moment during the Safety Car period at which the video evidence should be evaluated,” the stewards noted. “The stewards determine that a new element exists in that the initial referral from Race Control was understood to have occurred during the restart, not at the commencement of the Safety Car period, which is a completely different and therefore ‘new’ time.

| Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

“The request to review the incident as of the beginning of the Safety Car period is relevant because it goes to the very heart of the matter.

“The request to review the incident from a different point in time within the Safety Car period is significant because it completely changes the framework within which the alleged incident is to be evaluated.

“The fact that the stewards evaluated the incident at the incorrect time within the Safety Car period is clear evidence that proper and correct communication regarding the precise time of the alleged infringement had not occurred between the stewards and Race Control at the time of the decision concerned. The stewards determine that the proper scope of the stewards’ inquiry was not, in fact, available at the time of the original decision and that such unavailability is the ultimate cause of the need for this right of review.”

The stewards issued a revised decision, correcting their earlier statement. “While the driver overtook behind the Safety Car, the position was promptly given back,” they noted. “Under the penalty guidelines no penalty is appropriate.”