Why were so many caught out for pit-lane speeding at Monaco? F1 Q&A

As it happens, Hamilton and Ferrari managed to find a way to negate his penalty around the safety-car period.

But Piastri suffered a little in terms of position, Gasly lost a podium place, and Russell saw a potential third place converted to no points at all after Mercedes messed up in his safety-car period pit stop and didn't serve the penalty in the right way.

Figure caption,

Monaco GP Recap: The Jewel in the Crown Shines!

After Alpine requested a right of review for the speeding infractions, can you explain what this is, how it works, and does it only apply to Pierre Gasly's race or could other drivers benefit from this? - Kevin

A right of review is essentially a laborious/fancy way of saying an appeal.

It's used because certain penalties - such as pit-lane speeding - are not subject to appeal. So teams have to use a different mechanism in the rules if they consider the penalty unfair.

A right of review request is successful only in extremely rare circumstances.

That's because one of its stipulations is it requires a team to submit to the FIA evidence that was not available at the time the penalty was incurred.

There are two complicating factors with that.

One is that it's quite rare for there to actually be new evidence. But even if there is something that could be argued to be new evidence, the FIA often finds a way to say that whatever the team puts forward as such is not that at all.

Sometimes this is more credible an argument than others.

Cynics - and there are plenty of those in F1 - often say that's because the FIA does not like to admit it is wrong.

Whatever the reason, it underlines why it's so difficult to win such a case.

In this situation, in theory any verdict applies only to Gasly, so even if Alpine won, only his race result would change.

But of course that would open the door to other teams to complain about what happened, and their result. Which - those cynics would say - is all the more reason for the FIA to reject it.

Having started strongly, what has happened to George Russell's performance this season? Is it simply down to a long run of bad luck or is he and/or his team making mistakes? - Michael

George Russell's admission after qualifying that he has been struggling to maximise the Mercedes car all season felt like a seminal moment in the championship fight.

Russell pointed to driving style, saying Antonelli had struggled in last year's car and now he was struggling in this one.

Until then, Russell had looked for external reasons to explain his difficult start to the season.

There have, indeed, been many.

He suffered a gearbox problem and then a front-wing issue in qualifying in China, which may well have denied him pole.

The safety-car timing in Japan handed the victory to Antonelli, and vaulted him ahead of Russell.

It's a bit of a stretch, however, to claim Russell would have won in Japan without that, because McLaren's Oscar Piastri led the first stint, and stopped in the same window as Russell before the safety car, and Russell didn't pass the Australian all race.

And in Canada, Russell was leading when his MGU-K failed to cause his retirement.

At the same time, the reason Russell's admission felt important is the impression for some time is that he has been struggling to keep up.

In China, Antonelli had the same front-wing issue as Russell on his final run - albeit his session was not disrupted in other ways, as Russell's was - and still claimed pole.

And after both dropped behind the Ferraris at the start, Antonelli's race-craft was much more decisive in passing them.

In Japan, Antonelli was on pole, and dropped back only because of a poor start. And such was his pace on medium tyres in the first stint of the race that Mercedes felt he was on target to run longer and claim the lead anyway, even without the safety car.

In Miami, there was no argument, Antonelli was simply faster. And although Russell took pole for the sprint and grand prix in Canada, won the sprint and was leading the grand prix when he broke down, Antonelli was all over him in both races and looked faster. The destiny of the win in Montreal was far from certain when Russell retired.

In a way, Russell's decision to finally admit he is struggling might be a good thing.

Last year, Lando Norris was in a similar position at McLaren. Having beaten Piastri convincingly in 2024, and so entered 2025 as favourite, Norris struggled with the characteristics of the car in the early part of the season.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

With assiduous work from Norris himself, and also from the team - both technically in terms of making changes to the car, but also psychologically in helping Norris get on top of his situation mentally - he bounced back and won the title.

Russell is in a difficult place, 68 points behind Antonelli, but it is far from unrecoverable.

As he put it on Sunday: "I want to get racing now. The season has been disjointed. I still very much believe in myself and know what I can do. I think we're not even 30% of the way through, but there's a lot of points down the drain.

"When I look at things objectively, if things were balanced out a little bit more, I still think it would have been very, very close. He's doing an amazing job, but I think I'd have at least two more victories to my name.

"I still very much believe in myself. I still believe we're going to be fighting for race wins for the end of this year."

Why did Charles Leclerc re-sign with Ferrari? Surely he has noticed Ferrari kills most drivers' careers? - Cassia

The sense of this question is on the minds of many in F1 in the context of Charles Leclerc's contract renewal at Ferrari.

He is in his eighth season at Maranello and has won just eight races. And his low conversation ratio from 27 poles is almost entirely down to team failings rather than driver.

No wonder, then, that the overriding question given Leclerc's commitment to the team is: is he wasting his career there?

After all, Ferrari have not won a drivers' championship since 2007, or a constructors' since 2008, and it's not as if they've lacked for drivers - Fernando Alonso, Sebastian Vettel, Leclerc and now Lewis Hamilton have all failed to win a title at Ferrari.

Clearly, the issue is the team.

Leclerc, though, refuses to believe they can't change that situation.

"I love the team," he said in Monaco. "That's pretty obvious from the outside. It's been eight years with the Formula 1 team, 10 years with Ferrari as a whole. They've been one of the first people to believe in me and to help me to get to where I am today, and I believe in the project most of all.

"I think with Fred [Vasseur] we have a very good relationship, and I strongly believe that he is the person that will be able to bring Ferrari back to the top. It's been a good start to the season, obviously not as good as what we would want, because we want to target the world championship, but there's been a lot of innovation on the car.

"We know where we are lacking and that's probably more the engine side. We've got a plan coming up and hopefully it will help us to get back to where we want to be.

"But why? It's because I love this team and because I believe in the project, and for these two reasons, yeah, that's why we continue together."

He was asked in Monaco whether he would finish his career at Ferrari. He pointed out that he was only 28 - "still young" - and had plenty of time ahead of him in F1

"At the moment this is what feels right for me and this is where I want to put all my focus, in trying to win with the team I love, that believed in me, that gave me the chance to be where I am today," he said. "That's what felt right for me.

"And then for the future we'll see. Obviously, I don't know what will life look like in five or six or seven or 10 years' time, but it's not the moment either to think about it."