Monza is never just another race. Speed, history and pressure make the Italian Grand Prix one of the most anticipated events of the season, at a circuit where efficiency, energy management and precision make the difference.

The 2026 weekend had three faces: Pierre Gasly, who claimed the first pole position of his career with Alpine; Ferrari, competitive but unable to deliver in front of the home crowd; and above all Kimi Antonelli, who produced an extraordinary comeback from 19th to 1st.

For DAG Management, Monza once again showed how the final result is the product of an entire weekend: preparation, strategy, management and the ability to execute under pressure.

Friday

Mercedes and Ferrari showed competitive pace from the very beginning. Russell topped FP2 ahead of Leclerc and Antonelli, while McLaren appeared to be slightly more vulnerable.

For Antonelli, however, Friday had a different objective. His power unit penalty meant he would have to start 19th, pushing Mercedes to focus primarily on race pace, traffic management and tyre management. That preparation would prove decisive.

Qualifying

Saturday delivered the surprise of the weekend: Pierre Gasly claimed the first pole position of his Formula 1 career, beating Russell by just 0.060 seconds. Alpine confirmed its competitiveness by also putting Colapinto into Q3.

Russell secured the front row, while Leclerc and Hamilton finished fourth and fifth. Piastri was third on the clock but dropped to sixth on the grid following his penalty.

Antonelli, already destined for the back of the grid, focused his work on the race.

Race

Sunday began with Charles Leclerc retiring on lap two, a major blow for Ferrari in front of its home crowd.

Russell controlled the opening phase, while Antonelli began a patient and precise comeback. The turning point came with the Virtual Safety Car, which Mercedes used to bring Antonelli into the pits for a fresh set of medium tyres. Russell remained on used hards.

The tyre advantage allowed Kimi to close the gap rapidly. In the final battle with Russell, he also briefly ran wide onto the gravel, but Antonelli immediately recovered and completed the decisive overtake.

DAG Management Ratings

Mercedes – Rating: 10

The most complete team performance of the weekend.

Mercedes did not take pole, but it managed the race better than anyone else. Russell’s car was prepared to fight at the front, while Antonelli’s programme had been adapted around his penalty and the need to overtake. This was intelligent operational management.

The team then turned two completely different race scenarios into a one-two finish. The decision to pit Antonelli under the VSC gave him a tyre advantage, but strategy alone did not win the race. The driver still had to make his way through the field, close the gap and overtake Russell.

The only delicate aspect was that the victory ultimately came through a direct battle between the two Mercedes drivers. From a sporting perspective, however, allowing them to race produced a conclusion worthy of the weekend.

Kimi Antonelli – Rating: 10

The driver of the weekend and one of the performances of the season.

Starting 19th because of a power unit penalty removed the possibility of controlling the race through track position. Antonelli therefore had to build his result through overtaking, tyre management and decision-making.

Friday’s work had been deliberately focused on race pace and traffic. On Sunday, that preparation became visible. He moved through the field without unnecessary contact, maintained his pace and put himself in the ideal position to capitalise on the VSC.

The excursion onto the gravel while attacking Russell was a warning. For a few seconds, victory could have disappeared. His reaction was exceptional: no panic, no emotional collapse, simply a reset and another attack.

Overtaking his teammate and championship rival made the result even more significant.

There was also the emotional context. Monza is not neutral territory for Antonelli. The noise, expectations and symbolism surrounding an Italian driver racing at home create a level of pressure that cannot be measured by the stopwatch. Starting from the back and winning demonstrates an unusual ability to separate emotion from execution.

This was not simply a comeback. It was a statement from a championship contender.

George Russell – Rating: 9.5

Russell’s second place should not be diminished by the scale of Antonelli’s victory.

He qualified on the front row, managed the opening phase extremely well and spent most of the race in a position to win. His pace was strong and his execution was clean.

The decisive disadvantage was strategic and tyre-related. When Antonelli stopped under the VSC for fresh mediums, Russell remained on used hards. From that point onwards, defending became increasingly difficult.

He still forced Antonelli to earn the overtake and brought home 18 valuable points.

At almost any other weekend, his performance would have been the headline. At Monza, he was beaten by an extraordinary comeback from the other side of the garage.

Red Bull – Rating: 8

An important response after the disappointment of Zandvoort.

Red Bull did not appear to be the fastest car overall, but Verstappen once again demonstrated how much he can extract when a podium is available.

Lawson’s weekend was considerably more complicated because of the penalties and his pit-lane start.

Max Verstappen – Rating: 9

A determined, aggressive and highly effective race.

Verstappen set the sixth-fastest time in qualifying and started fifth after Piastri’s penalty. He remained in contention, completed several decisive overtakes and ultimately secured third place.

The result was important after his early retirement at Zandvoort. It showed that Red Bull can still fight at the front on circuits where straight-line efficiency and confidence under braking can be exploited.

He did not have the overall pace to challenge Mercedes for the victory, but third place represents an excellent maximum result.

Liam Lawson – Rating: 6

A much more difficult second weekend as a substitute after his strong performance at Zandvoort.

Lawson’s qualifying was compromised by impeding Piastri, while his weekend was further complicated by power unit-related penalties and changes that forced him to start from the pit lane.

From that position, 14th represents a comeback rather than a true reflection of his potential. His battle with Hülkenberg at Turn 4 also came under the scrutiny of the stewards.

The Zandvoort result was missing, but the context was significantly more difficult.

McLaren – Rating: 7.5

Monza presented McLaren with a different challenge.

The car did not have the same relative advantage it had shown at other circuits, and both drivers struggled with confidence under braking throughout the weekend. Qualifying execution was also not perfect.

Despite this, McLaren brought both cars home in fourth and fifth, separated by just 0.197 seconds. It was an important damage-limitation operation.

Lando Norris – Rating: 8

Norris started eighth after a difficult qualifying session in which he struggled to find the necessary confidence under braking.

The race was much stronger. He moved progressively through the field, avoided the early problems and climbed to fourth.

The final battle with Piastri was extremely close. Norris held on to the position by less than two tenths of a second at the chequered flag.

After victories in Hungary and the Netherlands, Monza was not a winning weekend, but it was a good example of how to maximise a package that was not perfectly suited to the circuit.

Oscar Piastri – Rating: 7.5

Piastri’s raw qualifying pace was enough for third, but his penalty for impeding Lawson dropped him to sixth on the grid and changed the course of his Sunday.

He recovered into the leading group and finished just 0.197 seconds behind Norris.

The speed was clearly there. The main negative was the qualifying incident, because at Monza every grid position influences first-lap risk and the ability to control the strategy.

A strong performance, but not a fully maximised weekend.

Ferrari – Rating: 5.5

The emotionally most difficult team to assess.

Ferrari had the pace. Friday had demonstrated it, and both cars remained close to the front in qualifying. At Monza, however, the potential is judged more harshly because the expectations are unique.

Leclerc’s crash on lap two immediately eliminated one car. Hamilton recovered to sixth, but sixth place cannot satisfy Ferrari at its home Grand Prix after what the team had shown in the previous sessions.

The painful conclusion is that the ingredients for a much stronger result were there, but they were not converted into performance.

Charles Leclerc – Rating: 4.5

A weekend that began with great promise and ended almost immediately.

Leclerc was fast on Friday and set the fourth-fastest time in qualifying, becoming third on the official grid. He had a genuine opportunity to fight at the front.

The crash on lap two at the final corner wiped everything away.

The most important aspect is that he emerged uninjured from a heavy impact. From a sporting perspective, however, it was an extremely costly mistake at the worst possible venue.

At Monza, a Ferrari retirement carries a different emotional weight. The disappointment belongs not only to the driver: it runs through the entire grandstand.

Lewis Hamilton – Rating: 7.5

After Leclerc’s retirement, Hamilton became Ferrari’s only real opportunity to score significant points.

His weekend had not been perfect, but he remained composed through the interruptions and brought the car home in sixth.

The result was below Ferrari’s ambitions, but Hamilton’s role became one of damage limitation. In that context, he scored useful points without further worsening an already painful Sunday.

Alpine – Rating: 9

One of the great stories of the weekend.

Gasly’s first pole was fully deserved. The car was genuinely competitive over one lap, while Colapinto’s Q3 appearance confirmed that Alpine’s performance was not limited to a single exceptional lap.

The race showed the difference between qualifying peak performance and long-run consistency, but seventh and ninth still gave the team a valuable double points finish.

Pierre Gasly – Rating: 9

The qualifying performance alone deserves a 10.

Gasly made perfect use of the opportunity, beating Russell by 0.060 seconds to claim his first Formula 1 pole, on the same circuit where he took his first victory in 2020.

Sunday was more difficult. Alpine could not maintain the same relative performance over 53 laps and Gasly gradually slipped backwards.

Seventh may appear disappointing after starting from pole, but the overall weekend remains a huge achievement. Gasly put Alpine at the centre of Formula 1 attention through pure performance.

Franco Colapinto – Rating: 8

A very strong supporting weekend for Alpine.

Colapinto reached Q3 and started seventh after the penalties were applied. He had an off-track excursion during the race, but recovered well enough to finish ninth.

His result is important because it confirms the competitiveness of the Alpine package. Gasly’s pole was spectacular, but two cars in Q3 and two cars in the points indicate broader progress.

Racing Bulls – Rating: 8

A highly effective weekend.

Lindblad produced one of the strongest midfield performances, while Tsunoda responded to a difficult qualifying session by taking the final available championship point.

Arvid Lindblad – Rating: 8.5

An impressive weekend built on qualifying confidence and race discipline.

Lindblad reached Q3, started ninth and finished eighth. At Monza, where a braking mistake or off-track excursion can quickly destroy a race, his control was particularly significant.

He turned a strong starting position into points without creating unnecessary problems.

Yuki Tsunoda – Rating: 7

Qualifying was disappointing, with elimination in Q1. The race was better.

He recovered to tenth and claimed the final world championship point. Not a spectacular performance, but a useful response after Saturday and an important contribution to Racing Bulls’ double points finish.

Audi – Rating: 7

Close to the points, but just outside.

Bortoleto and Hülkenberg finished 11th and 12th, showing a reasonably consistent midfield package but lacking the final margin required to score points.

Gabriel Bortoleto – Rating: 7.5

Bortoleto missed Q3 by just 0.001 seconds, a figure that shows how competitive he was.

He started tenth after the penalties and finished 11th. Missing out on points by one position is frustrating, but the weekend once again demonstrated strong one-lap execution and growing maturity.

Nico Hülkenberg – Rating: 6.5

Hülkenberg qualified 13th and finished 12th.

His battle with Lawson at Turn 4 was reviewed by the stewards, but overall his race was a solid midfield performance.

Audi simply lacked the final few tenths needed to turn respectable pace into points.

Williams – Rating: 5.5

A difficult weekend that did not turn into the opportunity Williams might have expected at a low-downforce circuit.

Sainz finished 13th, while Albon’s power unit penalty forced him into a race-long recovery from the back.

Carlos Sainz – Rating: 6

Sainz qualified 15th and finished 13th.

No major mistakes, but no realistic route towards the points either. The result reflects the limitations of the package at Monza more than any particularly poor individual performance.

Alex Albon – Rating: 5.5

Albon’s weekend was compromised before the race by the penalty that forced him to start from the back.

Williams also used him strategically in qualifying to provide a tow for Sainz. Sunday therefore became primarily an exercise in recovery, ending with 17th place.

Haas – Rating: 5.5

Haas had shown encouraging signs on Friday, particularly with Bearman and the updated package, but the race failed to turn those indications into points.

Oliver Bearman – Rating: 6

Bearman showed interesting pace throughout the weekend and qualified 12th.

He finished 15th, ahead of Ocon, but the race never developed into a genuine points opportunity.

The positive aspect is that the updated car appeared more exploitable than at some previous weekends.

Esteban Ocon – Rating: 5.5

Ocon qualified 16th and finished 16th.

A quiet and difficult weekend. The car did not provide him with the platform needed to become a midfield protagonist.

Aston Martin – Rating: 4

Monza brutally exposed the limitations of the Aston Martin package.

Both cars were eliminated in Q1, both started towards the back of the grid and both retired from the race.

Fernando Alonso – Rating: 5

Alonso set the 21st-fastest time in qualifying and then started from the pit lane after power unit changes under Parc Fermé conditions.

The race was already an uphill battle before it even started. He subsequently returned to the pits with suspected damage to the car and retired.

The driver had very few opportunities to influence the final result.

Lance Stroll – Rating: 4.5

Stroll qualified 22nd and suffered from the same fundamental limitations in straight-line performance.

His race ended with a hydraulic problem.

A weekend to forget, but also one that clearly identified the type of circuit on which Aston Martin remains particularly vulnerable.

Cadillac – Rating: 4.5

Cadillac continues its first-year development programme, and Monza once again exposed the gap to the established midfield.

Neither car reached Q2 and both finished at the back of the classified field.

Sergio Perez – Rating: 5

Perez qualified 20th and finished 18th.

There was no realistic opportunity to fight for points, but he completed the full race distance, adding another valuable set of data to the development project.

Valtteri Bottas – Rating: 4.5

Bottas qualified 19th and finished 19th.

A difficult weekend with limited competitive opportunities. The main value remains the mileage, learning and understanding of where the package is losing performance.

Championship Perspective

Monza was significant far beyond the 25 points awarded for victory.

Antonelli arrived at the weekend knowing he would start from the back because of his power unit penalty. Russell, one of his main championship rivals, was starting from the front row. On paper, this was a weekend in which Antonelli should have been focused primarily on limiting the damage.

Instead, he won.

That changes the psychological meaning of the championship battle. A driver capable of turning a compromised weekend into a victory forces his rivals to understand that even favourable circumstances may not be enough.

Russell remains extremely strong, and Monza confirmed that he can fight for victory whenever Mercedes gives him the necessary platform. Norris and McLaren remain dangerous, even if Monza was less suited to their package. Verstappen’s podium confirms that Red Bull cannot be ignored.

But Antonelli’s result at Monza possesses a different quality.

It demonstrates resilience.

Championships are rarely won only during dominant weekends. They are won by turning difficult weekends into damage limitation and, sometimes, transforming what should have been a containment exercise into the maximum possible result.

Weekend Highlights

Driver of the Weekend – Kimi Antonelli – Rating: 10

From 19th to first at Monza.

The numbers are already powerful, but the context makes the performance even greater: home pressure, a championship battle, a direct fight with his teammate and a late mistake that could have erased the victory.

He absorbed all of it and still won.

Qualifying Performance of the Weekend – Pierre Gasly – Rating: 10

Gasly’s first Formula 1 pole was one of the purest sporting moments of the weekend.

Alpine gave him a competitive car. Gasly then delivered the lap.

That distinction matters. Opportunities at this level are rare; turning them into results is what separates a memorable performance from one that is merely promising.

Team of the Weekend – Mercedes – Rating: 10

A one-two finish achieved through two completely different race scenarios.

Russell fought at the front. Antonelli fought from the back. Mercedes prepared both cars according to their respective needs and maintained strategic flexibility when the VSC arrived.

Emotion of the Weekend – Antonelli Wins at Home

Some victories carry more emotional weight than the standings can show.

For an Italian driver, winning at Monza means carrying the expectations of the crowd through every braking zone and every decision.

Antonelli turned that pressure into performance.

Disappointment of the Weekend – Ferrari

The pace was there. The opportunity was there. The fans were there.

The result was not.

Leclerc’s early retirement and Hamilton’s sixth place left Ferrari with far less than what appeared possible on Friday and Saturday.

DAG Management Conclusions

The Italian Grand Prix provided one of the clearest examples of what DAG Management considers a complete performance.

Motorsport careers are often judged from the outside through simple numbers: qualifying position, finishing position, points and victories.

Within the sport, the analysis has to go deeper.

Antonelli’s victory began on Friday, when Mercedes accepted the reality of the penalty and adapted its programme. It continued through the opening laps, when he resisted the temptation to force every overtake immediately. It was built through tyre management and positioning. It became possible thanks to the Virtual Safety Car. And it was completed through execution when he finally reached Russell.

The VSC created an opportunity.

It did not create the victory.

Antonelli still had to use the new tyres, close the gap, recover from the gravel excursion and overtake one of the strongest drivers on the grid.

That is why Monza matters.

For Gasly and Alpine, the weekend offers another lesson: qualifying excellence can change the perception of an entire project. The pole was the reward for technical progress and driver confidence, even if the race pace prevented the fairytale from continuing on Sunday.

For Ferrari, the lesson is harder. Potential has to become results. At Monza, emotion amplifies everything: success becomes unforgettable, but missed opportunities hurt even more.

McLaren demonstrated the value of damage limitation. Red Bull demonstrated the value of having a driver capable of extracting a podium when victory is unavailable. Racing Bulls maximised its opportunity in the midfield. Audi came close. Aston Martin and Cadillac received another clear indication of the development work still required.

But the image that remains is Antonelli.

An Italian driver, at Monza, starting 19th and finishing first.

From a management perspective, the most impressive part is not the romance of the story. It is the process behind it: preparation, adaptation, patience, decision-making, recovery and execution.

Talent makes a driver fast.

The ability to combine all these elements is what makes a driver capable of winning championships.

Monza 2026 was not simply another victory for Kimi Antonelli.

It was the kind of race that can become part of a driver’s identity.

Female participation in motorsport is growing, yet many careers still appear to stall in the middle of the ladder, before reaching the top categories. We look at how a generational shift and the growing number of girls entering karting are nevertheless making change increasingly inevitable…

Seeing far more women behind the wheel of racing cars than we did twenty or thirty years ago can send two very different messages to anyone looking at the sport: is it propaganda, or is it real change? The fact that motorsport has traditionally been a male-dominated sport is neither a problem nor a new development. It is simply a fact rooted in its history and in the numbers that history has produced, shaped by a society structured in a particular way. Until relatively recently, girls – with a few exceptions – were steered by their families towards sports considered more appropriate for their gender.

Then came a phase in which it was considered ‘right’ for women to have their place in motorsport as well, leading to a sort of controlled access based more on image than substance. The evolution of the sport and the widening of its base, particularly through karting, have brought us to the current situation, where there are simply drivers – women by birth certificate – who are fast and who deserve the same opportunity to develop as anyone born male.

In terms of numbers, how much have you seen female participation grow in our sport since you, at DAG, entered the industry?
From our point of view, the growth is clear, especially if we look beyond absolute numbers and consider the quality and continuity of female participation. When we first began working in a structured way in karting and motorsport, seeing a girl in certain categories was still relatively unusual. Today, particularly in the younger age groups, it is no longer something that raises eyebrows.

That is probably the most important sign. The more families see motorsport as a genuine option for a daughter, the more girls start at an early age and, above all, the more of them stay in the sport long enough to build experience and achieve results.

For us at DAG Management, this is not simply a phenomenon we observe from the outside. It is something we strongly believe in and have chosen to invest in. We currently represent five female drivers, a significant female presence within our portfolio, which allows us to experience the evolution of women’s motorsport every day, from the track and the teams to the development of their careers.

They are five very different young women, and that is precisely why they illustrate how misleading it is to talk about a single ‘female driver model’. Vanesa Silkunaite stands out for her determination and her ability to compete in extremely competitive international environments; Milla Sjöstrand is building her single-seater career with great seriousness and maturity; Julia Angelard combines speed, sensitivity and a strong desire to improve from one race to the next; Mia Zanki has already shown through her results that she can be competitive and win; Nefeli Kosmopoulou approaches her career with determination, commitment and a strong desire to progress in a very high-level environment.

Five personalities, five stories and five different paths. That is fundamental to us. We do not want to manage or promote ‘five girls’, but five athletes, each with their own qualities, needs and potential, exactly as we do with our male drivers.

The fact that DAG now has such a significant female presence is not the result of an image strategy. It comes from the belief that this talent exists and deserves to be developed with the same professionalism, time and expectations we give to any other young driver. That said, as an agency we are careful about claiming that the transformation is already complete. Female participation has grown, but there is still a significant gap between entering karting and being able to progress all the way to professional racing categories.

It is often in the middle of a career that the path becomes more difficult, for financial, sporting, structural and opportunity-related reasons. For us, the real measure of change will not simply be having more girls on the grid, but seeing increasing numbers of them reach the higher categories through programmes built around performance, continuity and proper career planning.

How do you work with a female driver? In what ways, if any, does the approach change, and where is it exactly the same as with male drivers?
Our basic approach does not change: first and foremost, we manage a driver, not a gender. The fundamentals are the same for everyone: talent, ability to learn, discipline, preparation, the quality of their work with the team, handling pressure, communication, budget and the construction of a realistic sporting pathway.

In our view, it would be a mistake to lower or alter the standards simply because the driver is a girl. A female driver must have the opportunity to be judged on what she does on the track in exactly the same way as a male colleague. There are, however, individual aspects that serious management needs to take into account. This applies to every athlete, but in some cases a young female driver may also have to deal with greater media exposure, particular external expectations or the feeling that she constantly has to prove she deserves her place.

Our job is to protect her from those pressures without creating a bubble around her. We therefore place a great deal of emphasis on confidence, communication with the family and team, mental preparation and the ability to separate sporting value from the narrative that can develop simply because she is a girl. The same applies physically: preparation has to be individualised, as it should be for any driver. The goal is not to create different treatment, but to put every athlete in the best possible position to fulfil their potential.

Karting currently seems to be the area where the gender gap matters least, especially in the younger categories. How do you think karting has played – and continues to play – such a key role in changing the mindset of the entire environment?
Karting has an enormous role because it is where children learn a very simple thing at a very early age: once the visor comes down, the stopwatch does not distinguish between a boy and a girl. In the junior categories, drivers grow up together. They share the track, briefings, preparation, victories and defeats. This makes normalisation far more natural than any communication campaign could ever achieve.

From an agency’s point of view, karting is also where we can observe development without the usual layers of expectation: how a young driver interprets the kart, how they respond to difficulties, how quickly they learn, how they work with their engineer and how consistent they are. If a girl grows up racing against boys from her earliest years, the people around her also become accustomed to judging her on performance. We believe the generational shift starts here. The children who today see it as completely normal to have a fast girl as a teammate or rival will tomorrow become engineers, team managers, professionals and parents.

Karting, therefore, is not only developing future female drivers. It is also shaping an environment in which female participation will increasingly be seen as the norm rather than the exception.

Let’s come to a key question: is there still a real ‘mindset’ problem when it comes to female drivers, or do you feel that phase is now behind us, at least in karting? Are gender prejudices still there, or have we left them behind? And what about car racing?
To say that the problem has been completely overcome would probably be too optimistic. But saying that nothing has changed would be equally unfair. In karting, especially among younger drivers, we see a much more open mindset. When a girl is competitive, in most cases she is quickly recognised as such. The track has a very practical ability to reduce prejudice: results are visible and difficult to argue with.

That does not mean stereotypes, comments or different expectations have disappeared. Sometimes a girl is celebrated too quickly simply because she is a girl. At other times, she has to produce more results before being given the same level of recognition. Both extremes can be damaging. As management, we try to avoid both discrimination and artificial overexposure. The situation becomes more complicated when drivers move into cars because the financial investment is much greater, while sponsors, manufacturers, junior programmes and media pressure all become more significant.

Here, being female can also have commercial value, and it is positive when that creates opportunities – provided that the opportunity then becomes a genuine sporting project. The challenge is to reach a system in which a girl can benefit from the interest surrounding women’s motorsport without being defined exclusively by it.

As a woman working professionally in this environment, I also experience this change from a different perspective. Today, as far as I know, I am the only woman directly running a driver management agency with an ongoing presence in international motorsport.

It is not something I normally emphasise, because I would rather our work be judged by the quality of our projects and what we are able to build together with our drivers. At the same time, this experience gives me a very clear understanding of some of the dynamics that young female drivers can encounter. Being a woman in an environment that is historically, and still predominantly, male-dominated sometimes means having to establish credibility before your work has even had the chance to speak for itself. But over the years I have also seen an important evolution: professionalism, competence and results can gradually break down many of those barriers.

That is precisely why the issue matters so much to us at DAG. We do not want to create ‘protected’ paths for girls or present them as exceptions. We want to help create the conditions in which they can build credibility, respect and opportunities through their sporting value, exactly like any other driver.

When people talk about women in karting, Sophie Kumpen – a karter from more than thirty years ago – is still better known, simply because she is Max’s mother, than many of the girls who are standing out on track today, sometimes winning high-level races. Why is that?
Sophie Kumpen is an interesting example precisely because she shows that competitive women in karting are not a recent phenomenon. The difference is that thirty years ago there was less media continuity, no social media, fewer structured programmes and, above all, no narrative capable of following a female driver throughout her career. The fact that the wider public now knows her mainly through Max Verstappen also says a great deal about the way motorsport history has been told. Today there are girls achieving significant results, but turning a sporting result into recognition takes time, continuity and visibility. We also need to be careful not to create a situation in which every achievement by a girl is presented as exceptional simply because of her gender.

From our perspective, communication should help these young athletes become recognisable for their journey, their personality and, above all, their performances. If we can build that continuity, in a few years we will no longer remember simply ‘the girl who won a race’, but specific names and careers. That is exactly the cultural shift we need.

Having worked with many girls over the years, where have you seen their strengths, and what areas do they still need to improve?
It is always difficult to generalise, because the differences between two drivers of the same gender can be far greater than the average differences between boys and girls.

In our experience, however, we have often encountered young female drivers who are extremely attentive, receptive to technical feedback, disciplined and able to analyse precisely what is happening on track.

In several cases we have also seen tremendous determination, probably because anyone who chooses a career in motorsport today while knowing they are still part of a minority often arrives with very strong motivation.

Working with five female drivers at the same time also gives us a particularly clear perspective. Every day we see five different personalities, five different ways of learning, dealing with pressure and building confidence.

That experience has made us even more convinced that the right way to develop female talent is to avoid labels and work with the individual athlete.

The areas for improvement, on the other hand, are individual. With some young athletes, we work on confidence and sporting aggression, in the positive sense of the term: the ability to take up space, defend a position, take the right risks and not feel obliged to be perfect all the time.

For others, the work is completely different.

As an agency, we try specifically not to turn individual observations into ‘female’ characteristics. The most important thing is to create an environment around the driver in which she can make mistakes, learn and grow with the same freedom given to any young talent.

Looking at the professional categories, what do you think is currently the biggest hurdle when moving into cars: technical, physical or sporting?
We do not believe there is a single obstacle. Moving into cars is difficult for everyone because so much changes: speed, weight, aerodynamics, tyre management, technical communication and the overall complexity of a race weekend.

From a physical standpoint, specific preparation now makes it possible to deal very effectively with the demands of single-seaters. So we do not consider physical strength, in itself, an insurmountable barrier. The biggest hurdle is probably the combination of sporting opportunity and economics.

To develop properly, a young driver needs mileage, testing, continuity with a competitive team and time to adapt. All of that requires significant investment. For a girl, there is often the additional challenge of choosing the right path. Dedicated programmes, mixed championships, opportunities offered by manufacturers or academies all need to be integrated into a single strategy rather than becoming isolated experiences.

That is precisely the role of management: not simply to chase the most visible opportunity at any given moment, but to build a career.

A good opportunity is valuable if it prepares the next step. Our goal is not for a female driver simply to ‘make it into cars’, but to arrive there with the technical, physical, financial and professional tools needed to stay there and progress.

There is a category dedicated to girls that provides a supporting act around the F1 show, and it is only natural that young drivers want to make it there. What is needed, in your view, for it to become a genuine platform rather than simply a sideshow?
A category such as F1 Academy has already achieved something important: it has created visibility, interest and a tangible goal for many girls.

From our perspective, that impact should not be underestimated. The connection with Formula 1, the teams and major brands gives female drivers a platform that simply did not exist until a few years ago.

For it to become increasingly effective as a genuine development platform, however, the key question is what happens afterwards.

A category like this becomes strategically important when it creates concrete opportunities to move up to the next level, and when the drivers who take part continue to be assessed, supported and developed after the programme ends.

That means testing, mileage, access to team facilities, physical and mental preparation, simulator work, opportunities in mixed championships and, above all, a multi-year perspective.

As an agency, we see F1 Academy not as a destination, but as a possible stage within a much longer career. Its strength will be greater the more effectively it can create a credible bridge towards the higher categories.

Visibility is essential, but it has to be accompanied by technical development and genuine sporting opportunities. The two are not contradictory. In fact, when they work together, they can accelerate change enormously.

How much could seeing a woman not just driving in F1, but actually winning there, help drive and promote motorsport among girls?
It would have an enormous impact, probably greater than any promotional campaign. In sport, representation matters most when it is linked to performance. Seeing a woman not simply taking part, but consistently competing at the highest level and winning, would immediately make the idea of motorsport as a possibility more tangible for millions of young girls.

But in our view, the most important effect would come even before Formula 1: more families would take their daughters to kart tracks, more sponsors would consider long-term female programmes, more teams would invest in scouting, and the talent pool from which drivers can be selected would grow. An F1 winner would therefore be both a symbol and the end result of a system that had learned how to create opportunities.

As management, however, we would like that day not to be described as the victory of a woman ‘despite’ being a woman. It would be the victory of a driver who reached the highest level through talent, hard work, opportunity and the right professional structure.

That would perhaps be the strongest sign that the sport had truly normalised female participation.

How far away do you think that moment is?
It is impossible to give a meaningful date, and we believe it would be wrong to create artificial expectations. Formula 1 is the top of an extremely tough selection process, even for the thousands of boys who start out in karting. The journey requires exceptional talent, results, resources, timing and opportunity.

What we can say is that the base is much broader today than it was ten or twenty years ago and, more importantly, there is now a structure that did not exist before: more girls in karting, dedicated programmes, greater manufacturer involvement, F1 Academy, increased sponsor interest and a culture that is slowly changing. All of this increases, both statistically and in practical terms, the chances of a female driver emerging who can go all the way to the top.

From our perspective, though, the more useful question is not simply ‘how far away is it?’, but ‘what do we need to do today to make it possible?’

We need to identify talent early, allow it to compete in the right conditions, provide financial and technical continuity and avoid artificially accelerating a career for media reasons. If the system does this properly, the moment will come naturally. And when it does, it will be important for there already to be a generation of girls behind that one driver, ready to follow her. For us, that will be the real measure of success.

I also see this evolution through my own role. Today, a woman can run a driver management agency and work every day, with full responsibility, in a paddock that is still predominantly male. The next step is for it to become just as normal to see a woman reach the top as a driver.

When we no longer need to point out that she is a woman, and instead simply talk about her talent, her results and her career, we will probably have achieved the most important change of all.

The final part of the Championship begins
After just over a month of summer break, the young driver from Abruzzo will compete again in Imola from 4 to 6 September for the third and penultimate round of the Endurance series of the Italian Gran Turismo Championship.
“Finally, after the summer break, we’re back on track: I can’t wait to get in the car on Friday! It’s always exciting to be able to race at Imola. I’m aware of the importance of this event, especially in terms of the championship, but I feel ready to tackle this weekend alongside my teammates.” said Mattia.

The three free practice sessions will be held on Friday at 11:55 a.m., 4:00 p.m., and finally on Saturday at 8:45 a.m. Qualifying will take place on Saturday from 2:00 p.m. onwards. The race will finally take place on Sunday at 3:00 p.m. You can follow the events on the official Aci Sport channel. (http://www.youtube.com/@ACISportTVofficial), on Sky channel 228, and on Tivùsat channel 52.

Mattia invites you to stay connected and follow him in this new chapter through his, Minardi Management, team, and championship social media pages:
• Instagram: @mattiabucci_official; Facebook: Mattia Bucci – Racing Driver
• Instagram: @minardi_management; Facebook: Minardi Management
• Instagram: @mattiabucci_fanclub
• Instagram: @dlracing.official
• Instagram: @cigranturismo; Facebook: Campionato Italiano Gran Turismo

The press officer, Federica Moccia

The 14-year-old will once again compete in the yellow and black colors of Ward Racing

• In just a few days, the inaugural round of the last karting series in the 2026 season will begin – the WSK Final Cup at the Franciacorta track.
• Among the competitors competing in the OKJ category is also 14-year-old Julia Angelard, who will take part in this series with the Ward Racing team, whose colors she represented last year.
• Like other competitors, the teenage Polish woman is using the end of the season to prepare for the 2027 season and develop her racing career.

While Formula 1 drivers have returned to competition after the summer break, in the world of karting a large part of the series is heading towards the final rounds, and drivers are looking for opportunities to test themselves in new categories or teams before the start of the next season. The first round of the WSK Final Cup series, taking place at the Franciacorta circuit from August 26-30, 2026, is a perfect opportunity. Among the drivers arriving on Italian soil is Julia Angelard, who we’ll also see in a new role this season.

Return to one of her favorite tracks

The inauguration of the WSK Final Cup at the Franciacorta Karting Track is good news for the Polish teenager, who has competed there several times last year, participating in both the WSK Super Master Series and the full ROK Cup Italia season. For the ORLEN Motorsport Academy protégé, visit to Italy isn’t the only return this coming weekend. As part of the WSK Final Cup series, Julia Angelard will once again compete in the yellow and black colors of the Ward Racing team, which are well-known to her and her fans.

Despite the holidays, August was an intense month for the Polish driver, dedicated to preparing for the final karting rounds of the season and for preparatory tests for the 2027 season. Julia Angelard spent last weekend at the Zandvoort track, where, at the invitation of the F1 Academy and More Than Equal, she had the opportunity to see behind the scenes of the McLaren team, meet the drivers, and meet the F1 Academy paddock.

Julia Angelard: time for a fresh start

“After an intense time with Birel ART this year, it’s time for a fresh start – my first race weekend with my new-old team at one of my favorite tracks. I have fond memories of both Ward Racing and Franciacorta itself, so I’m looking forward to this weekend and the upcoming competition on track. Like other competitors, for me, the WSK Final Cup is also a form of training in competitive conditions and preparation for the next season in my career. I hope the weather cooperates and allows us to show our full potential in favorable conditions,” emphasizes the driver of Minardi Management powered by Dag Ltd.

OKJ category schedule at the Franciacorta circuit

Friday, 28.08.2026
10:15 – Free Practice, Serie 1
10:30 – Free Practice, Serie 2
12:10 – Timing Practice, Serie 2
12:20 – Timing Practice, Serie 2
16:00 – Eliminatory Heat A-B
16:20 – Eliminatory Heat C-D

Saturday, 29.08.2026
09:30 – Warm Up, odd numbers
09:40 – Warm Up, even numbers
12:20 – Eliminatory Heat A-C
12:40 – Eliminatory Heat B-D
16:40 – Eliminatory Heat A-D
17:00 – Eliminatory Heat B-C

Sunday, 30.08.2026
09:30 – Warm Up, Prefinal A
09:40 – Warm Up, Prefinal B
12:00 – Prefinal A
12:20 – Prefinal B
15:30 – Final