Isack Hadjar has revealed how confused engine software complicated his attempt to give Max Verstappen a decisive tow during Belgian Grand Prix qualifying. Red Bull’s strategy ultimately helped the four-time world champion secure second place at Spa-Francorchamps, but executing the plan proved far more difficult than it appeared.
With Isack Hadjar carrying a grid penalty following the replacement of power unit components, Red Bull assigned the French driver a strategically important role in Q3. His task was to position his car ahead of Max Verstappen and provide the slipstream needed to improve the Dutchman’s lap time.
Isack Hadjar helps Max Verstappen secure second at Spa
Max Verstappen was one of the leading figures in qualifying for the Belgian Grand Prix. The Red Bull driver claimed second position with crucial assistance from Isack Hadjar, who delivered a tow around Spa-Francorchamps.
That contribution allowed Max Verstappen to gain a position that would otherwise have been impossible for him to achieve. It underlined Isack Hadjar’s growing strategic value within the Red Bull structure, alongside the wider discussion over his potential future role at Red Bull.
Providing a tow in Formula 1 is never straightforward. The lead driver must create a useful aerodynamic benefit without compromising the following car through dirty air, while both drivers need to coordinate their timing precisely. Modern power unit and energy-management systems can make that process even more complicated.
Why engine software complicated Red Bull’s tow strategy
Isack Hadjar experienced that challenge first-hand during Saturday’s qualifying session. Stopping unexpectedly on the circuit affected how the engine and its software interpreted the situation, leaving the French driver unsure how much power would be available when he accelerated again.
“It was very difficult,” Isack Hadjar explained. “The difficulty is trying to understand and guess what the engine will give you. Once you stop at the exit of Turn 14 and deploy the power, the engine is a little confused because you have stopped for no reason, and the software is disoriented too.”
The episode illustrates how a driver’s actions can affect power delivery under Formula 1’s complex energy-management systems. Similar questions have emerged elsewhere on the grid, including the two factors Mercedes identified behind George Russell’s deployment difficulties.
Two Q3 attempts produce opposite power-delivery problems
During the first flying-lap attempt in Q3, Isack Hadjar received too much power and pulled away from Max Verstappen, reducing the effectiveness of the planned slipstream. Red Bull then faced the opposite problem on the second run.
This time, Isack Hadjar did not have enough power available. As a result, Max Verstappen caught him much earlier than intended, well before the Bus Stop chicane. Despite those complications, the strategy still contributed to Max Verstappen securing a place on the front row.
The sequence demonstrated how difficult it can be to coordinate a precisely timed tow when power delivery does not behave exactly as the driver expects. In modern Formula 1, even a seemingly simple tactical instruction can depend on the interaction between the driver, power unit and software.
Leave a Reply