A Terrifying Calm Has Descended on Brackley

It is all over. Shut it down, folks. If the 2026 Formula 1 season were decided on looks alone, Mercedes would have already won the world title. But as we peel back the layers of the newly unveiled W17, it becomes clear that the team isn’t just relying on aesthetics. There is a shift in the air at Brackley—a shift that should make every other team on the grid incredibly nervous.

Toto Wolff, the team principal who has spent the last few years managing crises and apologizing to fans, has returned to a state of eerie, stoic calm. The desperate need to prove themselves is gone, replaced by a quiet confidence that feels remarkably like the dominant Mercedes of old. The W17 livery launch wasn’t just a car reveal; it was a statement of intent. The team has stopped looking back at their past glory and has fully committed to a future where the machine is the star, and everything else—including the drivers—is secondary.

The W17: A Masterclass in Design and Identity

Let’s start with the obvious: the car is a stunner. The W17 livery has dropped, and it did not disappoint. In a preseason where competitors like Audi offered somewhat recycled concepts, Mercedes has delivered a visual feast. The design carries a dynamic Petronas green flow line that “swooshes” across the chassis, perfectly bridging the team’s “Silver Arrows” heritage with its modern, menacing black identity.

It works from every perspective. The top-down angle is particularly striking, showcasing a cohesive design language that screams speed. However, it wouldn’t be a modern F1 launch without a little controversy. The new Microsoft logo, representing a massive estimated $60 million-a-year partnership, sits somewhat awkwardly on the car, clashing slightly with the overall flow. But let’s be honest—if a tech giant is paying that much to help you win, they can carve their logo wherever they please. From the front, it disappears, leaving only the aggressive, aerodynamic lines of a challenger ready to hunt.

Toto Wolff’s “Nerd-Speak” Strategy

What is even more interesting than the paint job is what Toto Wolff actually said—or rather, what he didn’t say. There was no usual preseason fixation on “being the fastest” or “fighting for wins.” Instead, Wolff’s first words of the new season were dry, technical, and frankly, a little scary.

He spoke about “significant change,” “transition,” and the “absolute focus across every area of performance.” He highlighted three main pillars: the car, the engine, and the fuel. This isn’t the emotional Toto of 2021 or the frustrated Toto of 2022. This is a man who has rebuilt his organization into an integrated engineering powerhouse. He is talking about energy flows, data flows, and sustainable fuels. It is absolute “nerd-speak,” and for the die-hard F1 fans who understand the technical depths of the sport, it is music to their ears. It signals that Mercedes has stopped trying to meme their way back to popularity and has returned to the cold, hard science of winning.

The Shift: Machine Over Man

Perhaps the most ruthless aspect of this new era is how Mercedes views its drivers. The days of the team revolving around a superstar personality like Lewis Hamilton are officially over. The W17 era is defined by the system, not the savior.

This philosophy explains the curious contract situations of George Russell and Kimi Antonelli. Despite being highly talented, both are on short, one-year deals. They are, in the coldest sense of the word, replaceable pawns in a much larger game. The message from the top is clear: the team, the engineers, and the factory matter more than the person behind the wheel. The drivers are simply there to operate the operating system. If they don’t gel with the engineering side, they can be ejected.

It is a harsh reality, reminiscent of the Williams team in the 1990s, where the car was the hero and the driver was just an employee. But this approach offers Mercedes massive leverage. It keeps the drivers hungry and reminds them that no one is bigger than the three-pointed star.

The Verstappen Shadow

Ironically, this “system-first” approach might be exactly what tempts Max Verstappen to jump ship. While it seems counterintuitive to lure a superstar to a team that de-emphasizes drivers, Mercedes is building something that appeals to Verstappen’s specific desires: freedom and competence.

Toto Wolff is discreetly building an ecosystem that supports Verstappen’s off-track passions. The team is signaling that they can offer the support, logistics, and political weight to help a driver compete in GT3 racing or events like the Nürburgring 24 Hours—things Max loves. By positioning Mercedes as a “works manufacturer” that can facilitate his racing life outside of F1, they are offering him a level of freedom Red Bull might struggle to match.

The W17 is the billboard for this pitch. It says, “We have the best car, the best system, and we can give you the best life.” It is a flirtation conducted through engineering excellence rather than public love letters.

Software is Performance: The Microsoft & CrowdStrike Edge

The final piece of the puzzle is the team’s transformation into a technology firm. The partnership with Microsoft is not just a sponsorship; it is a declaration that software is now a raw performance differentiator. In the 2026 era, managing energy deployment, simulation tools, and strategy modeling is just as critical as horsepower.

CrowdStrike CEO George Kurtz, a tech heavyweight and amateur racer, has also increased his influence within the team. This isn’t just big money; it is big data. Mercedes is betting that the team with the best code will win the championship. They are building an “operating system for racing,” moving away from the old-school “engine and aero” gods to a new trinity that includes digital intelligence.

Conclusion: The Empire Strikes Back

After years of wandering in the wilderness, suffering through the “porpoising” disasters of the W13 and the confusion of the W14 and W15, Mercedes has finally found its footing. They aren’t promising miracles. They aren’t asking for patience. They are simply presenting a weapon.

The W17 represents a collective, sustained effort from a team that has unified its chassis and engine departments into one glorious whole. They have adapted to the cost cap, embraced the technical transition, and removed the emotional baggage of the past. Toto Wolff’s warning is quiet, but it echoes loudly across the paddock: Mercedes is ready. The transition is complete. And if this car is as fast as it looks, the rest of the grid should be very, very afraid.

The dawn of a new era in Formula 1 was supposed to be a moment of triumph, a sleek unveiling of futuristic engineering and raw speed. Instead, on a freezing, rain-soaked morning at the Autodromo Internazionale Enzo e Dino Ferrari, the 2026 revolution began with the screech of tires and the crunch of gravel.

Red Bull’s sister team, Racing Bulls (VCARB), took to the track to shake down their challenger for the upcoming regulation overhaul. But what unfolded over the course of a few dramatic minutes has sent shockwaves through the paddock, raising alarming questions about the readiness of the sport’s dominant force. From a rookie’s humiliating spin to a design feature that has engineers whispering about critical failures, the first real test of the Red Bull-Ford powertrain was anything but smooth.

The Spin Heard ‘Round the World

The conditions at Imola were brutal. With temperatures plummeting and rain lashing the tarmac, the team was forced to run on demonstration wet tires—rubber designed more for visibility than high-performance grip. Liam Lawson, the steady hand of the team, took the VCARB 03 out for an initial installation lap. He brought it home clean, a professional start to a nerve-wracking day.

Then came the turn of Arvid Lindblad. At just 18 years old, the Red Bull junior is touted as the next big thing, a prodigy with the weight of the world on his shoulders. But the Villeneuve Chicane cares little for potential. On his very first run in a 2026-spec machine, Lindblad lost the rear. The car snapped, sliding helplessly off the track and beaching itself deep in the gravel trap.

As the recovery truck rolled out to retrieve the stricken machine, social media erupted. “He’s not ready!” cried the critics. “Disaster!” screamed the headlines. But while the image of the car being crane-lifted off the track was a PR nightmare, seasoned observers knew the spin was merely a distraction. The real story wasn’t the driver; it was the car itself.

The “Elephant” on the Airbox

When the car was finally recovered, eagle-eyed analysts noticed something peculiar—and potentially worrying. The airbox, the intake perched above the driver’s head, was massive. It was significantly bulkier than anything seen on current grid cars, a swollen, bulbous design that immediately triggered rumors in the pit lane.

In the high-stakes world of Formula 1 aerodynamics, every millimeter counts. You do not build a massive, drag-inducing airbox unless you absolutely have to. The leading theory? Cooling problems.

This shakedown marked the first time Red Bull’s own engine—developed in-house under the Red Bull Powertrains division in partnership with Ford—had ever turned a wheel on a real racetrack. After years of dyno testing and simulation, the physical reality seems to be running hot. A larger airbox suggests a desperate need to shove more air into the system to keep temperatures down.

“It’s a red flag,” one paddock insider noted. “You don’t compromise aerodynamics like that unless the engine is melting itself.”

“Sleepless Nights”: A Boss’s Warning

If the visual evidence wasn’t concerning enough, the verbal warnings from team management were downright chilling. Laurent Mekies, the Team Principal of Racing Bulls, didn’t try to sugarcoat the situation during his appearance at the Autosport Business Exchange. Instead, he offered a grim forecast for the months ahead.

“There may be a fair amount of headaches and sleepless nights initially,” Mekies admitted, a quote that has since been dissected by every F1 news outlet. “Bear with us in the first few months.”

This is not the language of a team confident in its immediate supremacy. It is the language of damage control. Mekies is effectively priming the fanbase—and perhaps his own sponsors—for a rough start. The transition to becoming a largely independent constructor with a brand-new power unit is fraught with peril, and Red Bull seems to be bracing for impact.

The Verstappen Gamble

The chaos at Imola casts a long, dark shadow over one man: Max Verstappen. The four-time World Champion is the face of the franchise, the driver who has become synonymous with Red Bull’s modern golden age. But the 2026 regulations are the great equalizer, and Verstappen is staring down the barrel of a midfield battle.

Mekies revealed that Verstappen is fully aware of the danger. “Max is in the project. He takes the risk with us,” Mekies stated. “He’s aware of the risk-taking.”

The translation is stark: Verstappen knows the car might be slow. He knows the engine might be fragile. Unlike other drivers who might jump ship at the first sign of trouble, Verstappen is reportedly looking for a “trajectory”—evidence that even if they start slow, they can climb back to the top.

But how long will that patience last? If the “headaches” Mekies predicts turn into a season of DNFs (Did Not Finish) and Q2 exits, the loyalty of the most competitive driver on the grid will be tested to its breaking point. With Mercedes and Ferrari undoubtedly watching closely, a failed 2026 launch could see the unimaginable happen: Verstappen walking away.

A Civil War in the Making?

Perhaps the most intriguing subplot of the Imola test is the dynamic between the main Red Bull Racing team and the “sister” outfit, Racing Bulls. Both teams will share the same power unit and many resources, yet they are direct competitors on the track.

History has shown that when major regulation changes occur, customer teams can sometimes unlock secrets that the factory team misses. With Racing Bulls taking a potentially more conservative approach to ensure reliability, there is a bizarre scenario unfolding where the B-team could outperform the A-team.

Imagine the scenes if Arvid Lindblad or Liam Lawson are consistently qualifying ahead of Max Verstappen because the “works” car is too aggressive and unreliable. It would be a civil war that could shatter the political structure of the Red Bull empire.

The Road to Barcelona

The spin at Imola was just a moment in time, but it symbolized the fragility of Red Bull’s position. They are stepping into uncharted territory, leaving behind the safety of Honda’s proven engineering for a risky venture with Ford.

The real answers won’t come until the full grid assembles for pre-season testing in Barcelona. Until then, we are left with the image of a rookie in the gravel, a boss promising sleepless nights, and a car that looks like it’s gasping for air.

The 2026 season hasn’t even started, but the drama is already at fever pitch. For Red Bull, the clock is ticking, and the whole world is watching to see if their biggest gamble will lead to glory—or a spectacular collapse.

In the high-octane world of Formula 1, the difference between immortality and heartbreak is often measured in milliseconds. But for McLaren, the 2025 season—a year that saw Lando Norris finally ascend to the throne of World Champion—was measured in something far more agonizing: two single points.

It was a victory, yes. Lando Norris is the champion, and Woking is celebrating its first drivers’ title since the glory days of Lewis Hamilton in 2008. But beneath the champagne spray and the confetti lies a darker narrative, one of near-catastrophe and intense internal soul-searching. In a candid and revealing interview, McLaren Team Principal Andrea Stella has pulled back the curtain on the team’s philosophy, admitting that the controversial “Papaya Rules”—the code of conduct designed to ensure fairness between Norris and his teammate Oscar Piastri—extracted a heavy toll on the team and nearly handed the championship on a silver platter to Red Bull’s Max Verstappen.

As the sport gears up for the seismic regulatory shifts of 2026, Stella’s message is clear: The team has survived the fire, but they cannot afford to be burned again. The “Papaya Rules” are being overhauled. The nice guys of the paddock are sharpening their teeth.

The Two-Point Terrors: How Close Was Too Close?

To understand the gravity of Stella’s recent comments, one must rewind to the dying moments of the 2025 season. The history books will record Lando Norris as the victor, but they may gloss over the sheer panic that permeated the McLaren pit wall in those final rounds. Max Verstappen, a driver who needs no invitation to exploit a weakness, surged late in the season, closing the gap with terrifying ruthlessness.

The final margin? Two points.

Two points separated the ecstatic triumph of Norris from the crushing despair of defeat. And for many pundits and fans alike, the blame for this razor-thin margin lay squarely at the feet of McLaren’s idealism. Throughout the season, the team adhered to their “Papaya Rules,” a doctrine of letting their drivers race freely, prioritizing sportsmanship and equality over the ruthless pragmatism usually required to secure a title.

While noble, this approach meant that Oscar Piastri, a phenomenal talent in his own right, often took points away from Norris or challenged him in ways that left the door ajar for Verstappen. Critics argued that McLaren kept the Dutchman in the title fight for far too long, playing a dangerous game of Russian roulette with their own championship aspirations.

Stella’s Admission: The Cost of Fairness

In his latest interview, Andrea Stella addressed these criticisms with the calm but steely demeanor of a man who knows he dodged a bullet. While he defended the principles of fairness and integrity, he made a startling admission: managing this internal “fairness” was exhausting.

“The way we’ve been racing in 2025… has given us also lots of information,” Stella noted, choosing his words carefully. He confirmed that while they are proud of their sportsmanship, the process was far from efficient. “We reviewed all the situations in which we could do better, in which we could do even simpler.”

The keyword here is “simpler.” Stella revealed that the constant management of the driver rivalry, the endless adjudication of what was “fair” in the heat of battle, required a “significant effort” from both the team and the drivers. It drained energy—mental and emotional reserves that should have been focused solely on making the car faster.

“The work, the energy associated with racing that way… is the most efficient [when it] takes the least amount of energy of anybody so that we can just focus on performance,” Stella explained.

Translation? The drama was too much. In 2026, McLaren intends to streamline their operations. The “Papaya Rules” 2.0 will likely be less about lengthy debates on equality and more about clear, decisive execution. They want to strip away the complexity that almost cost them everything.

The Civil War: Norris vs. Piastri in 2026

If managing the drivers was hard in 2025, 2026 promises to be a powder keg. Stella was effusive in his praise for his driver lineup, predicting that both men would return significantly stronger.

For Lando Norris, the 2025 title is a shield against the self-doubt that has plagued him in the past. “Lando will definitely be stronger in 2026,” Stella asserted, attributing this not just to the confidence of being a champion, but to a “logic of growth” embedded in the team’s DNA. The shaky, self-critical Lando is gone, replaced by a driver who knows he can conquer the world.

But on the other side of the garage sits Oscar Piastri. The young Australian has proven to be unflappable, fast, and fiercely ambitious. Stella expects him to be “faster, stronger, and even more complete year by year.”

This creates a fascinating and potentially volatile dynamic. If the “simplified” rules mean stricter team orders to protect the lead driver, how will a faster, stronger Piastri react? If the rules mean “may the best man win but don’t crash,” can McLaren truly afford another civil war with a reset grid?

The relationship between these two stars will be the defining narrative of the 2026 season. They are friends, yes, but they are also predators apexing at the same time. Stella’s mention of “great conversations” and “lots of energy” implies a positive atmosphere now, but the true test will come at Turn 1 of the first Grand Prix.

The Great Reset: Into the Unknown

Looming over all this internal politics is the shadow of the 2026 regulations. This is not just a new season; it is a new era. New power units, new chassis rules, and a complete aerodynamic overhaul mean that the pecking order could be turned on its head.

Stella did not mince words regarding the scale of the challenge. He described the upcoming changes as the “biggest shift” he has seen in his more than 25 years in Formula 1.

“The complete regulation reset means everyone starts from zero,” he warned.

This is the nightmare scenario for a team that has just reached the summit. History is littered with teams that dominated one era only to fumble the transition to the next (think Mercedes in 2022 or Red Bull in 2014). McLaren is aiming for a third consecutive Constructors’ Championship, a feat that would cement their legacy as an all-time great team, but there are no guarantees.

The team is “preparing themselves at the best,” with drivers logging endless hours in the simulator to understand the 2026 beast. But simulation is not reality. The fear that a rival—perhaps Ferrari or a resurgent Mercedes—has found a “magic bullet” in the new regulations is palpable.

The Verdict: Evolution or Revolution?

McLaren enters 2026 at a crossroads. They are the champions, the hunted, and the standard-bearers. Yet, they are also a team in transition, refining their philosophy to avoid the near-misses of the past.

The decision to “simplify” their racing rules is a direct response to the trauma of the 2025 title fight. It is an acknowledgment that while idealism is beautiful, winning is mandatory. The romantic notion of two teammates battling freely is being tempered by the cold, hard reality of championship points.

As Andrea Stella looks toward the future, he projects confidence. The car development is on schedule. The drivers are evolving. The team is proud. But beneath the corporate polish, the message is unmistakably urgent: We won, but we got lucky. Next time, we leave nothing to chance.

For Lando Norris, the defense of his title will be the fight of his life—not just against Max Verstappen or the grid, but against his own teammate and the weight of a team that is finally learning to be ruthless. The “Papaya Rules” are dead. Long live the new regime.

In the high-octane history of Formula 1, Keke Rosberg has always been an enigma. The 1982 World Champion, with his trademark mustache and aviator sunglasses, was the epitome of the fearless 80s racer. He drove iconic cars, wrestled with turbo monsters, and survived an era where death was a weekly possibility. But for decades, Rosberg remained relatively quiet about the internal machinations of the sport. He was a professional who did his job and went home.

Now, at 77 years old, that silence has ended.

With no contracts to honor, no paddock favors to curry, and absolutely nothing left to protect, Rosberg has finally opened up about the darker undercurrents of his career. This isn’t a story about petty track rivalries or overtaking maneuvers gone wrong. It is a profound and searing indictment of four specific figures who represented everything Rosberg came to detest about Formula 1: the politics, the lack of accountability, and the erosion of integrity.

The Architect: Bernie Ecclestone and the “Bravery” Trap

For Rosberg, the rot started at the very top. His conflict with F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone was never a public shouting match—it was a philosophical war. In the early 80s, drivers were expected to be gladiators: silent, compliant, and grateful for the opportunity to risk their lives.

Rosberg refused to play that role.

While other drivers whispered their complaints in private motorhomes, Rosberg spoke openly about safety schedules, track conditions, and the terrifying imbalance of power. He despised the romantic language Ecclestone’s regime used to justify danger. To Rosberg, words like “bravery” and “heroism” were cynical shields used by the powers-that-be to avoid accountability for negligence.

“When accidents happened, the system moved on quickly,” Rosberg has noted. He saw a sport where decisions were made in boardrooms far from the tarmac, while the men in the cockpits paid the price in blood and bone. His demand was simple: give drivers a voice before decisions are final. But in Ecclestone’s autocracy, asking questions didn’t make you a leader; it made you “problematic.” Rosberg’s refusal to pretend that the danger was acceptable created a rift that never truly healed.

The Champion Without Class: Nelson Piquet

If Ecclestone represented the flawed system, Nelson Piquet represented the flawed participant. Piquet was undeniably fast, intelligent, and brutally effective—traits Rosberg respected. But the Brazilian champion also mastered the dark arts of psychological warfare, and that is where Rosberg drew the line.

Rosberg watched as Piquet turned the paddock into a political theater. Piquet was known for publicly blaming his cars, undermining his teammates, and manipulating the media to tilt narratives in his favor. For Rosberg, a World Champion had a duty to raise the tone of the sport, not drag it into the mud.

The conflict wasn’t about speed; it was about standards. Rosberg was deeply disappointed to see the bar for a champion lowered below the threshold of professional responsibility. He believed that Piquet’s success sent a dangerous message to the next generation: that influence off the track mattered as much as performance on it. Rosberg did not deny Piquet’s talent, but he objected to a system that celebrated a winner regardless of the collateral damage they caused to their team and colleagues.

The Agent of Chaos: Nigel Mansell

The tension became personal and claustrophobic when Nigel Mansell joined Williams in 1985. Suddenly, the enemy wasn’t just on the track—he was in the garage next door.

Rosberg was a man of logic, directness, and control. Mansell was a creature of emotion, volatility, and relentless pressure. From the moment they became teammates, the Williams garage transformed from a collaborative workspace into a battlefield. Mansell fought every internal situation like it was the final lap of a Grand Prix, using public comments and emotional leverage to demand priority.

For Rosberg, who believed that internal harmony was essential for developing a winning car, this was a disaster. He found himself in a working environment defined by constant friction and negotiation rather than collaboration. He never attacked Mansell personally, but he questioned what the sport was becoming if it rewarded such internal aggression. The constant chaos drained the joy from racing, proving to Rosberg that surviving in this new era required a mindset he simply didn’t respect.

The Betrayal: Frank Williams

Perhaps the most painful revelation concerns the man who gave Rosberg his greatest triumph: Frank Williams.

After winning the 1982 World Championship, Rosberg expected what any reigning king of the sport would: a voice. He didn’t want control or special treatment; he simply wanted to be involved in shaping the team’s future. He believed his title had earned him a seat at the table.

He was wrong.

Frank Williams was a racer at heart, but he was also a ruthless businessman who viewed drivers as interchangeable components—essential but temporary. Long-term plans were made without Rosberg. New directions were set without his input. The reigning champion found himself sidelined in his own team, realizing that his loyalty meant nothing against the cold calculus of team management.

It was a quiet but devastating realization. The relationship became purely transactional. Rosberg understood then that in Frank Williams’ eyes, a driver was only as good as his last lap, and even a championship ring didn’t buy you respect or a future. This lack of human connection and loyalty was the final straw that changed how Rosberg viewed his place in the sport.

The Legacy of Refusal

Keke Rosberg eventually walked away from Formula 1, not because he had lost his speed, but because he had lost his faith in the environment. He left because he refused to normalize risks he couldn’t control, refused to celebrate victories devoid of responsibility, and refused to build a career on compromises.

At 77, his story serves as a powerful reminder. In a world that often rewarded silence, adaptability, and political maneuvering, Rosberg chose the harder path. He chose to speak plainly. It cost him comfort, and it likely cost him more race wins, but it preserved the one thing he values most today: his credibility.

He didn’t hate the sport. He hated what these four men turned it into. And finally, the world knows why.

The promise of a new era in Formula 1 is always seductive. It offers a clean slate, a leveling of the playing field, and the tantalizing hope that any team, with enough ingenuity and grit, can rise to the top. The 2026 regulations were drafted with exactly this utopian vision in mind: to reset the competitive order, attract new manufacturers like Audi, and ensure a tighter, more thrilling spectacle for fans worldwide. But as we stand on the precipice of this new dawn, the reality is far more chaotic—and far more controversial.

Before a single wheel has turned in anger, a storm of epic proportions has engulfed the paddock. It is a controversy that strikes at the very soul of the sport, pitting the ruthless genius of engineering innovation against the desperate need for competitive balance. At the center of this hurricane sit Mercedes and Red Bull, two juggernauts who have seemingly outsmarted the rule makers. On the periphery, watching with a mixture of fury and helplessness, are Ferrari, Honda, and newcomer Audi. And caught in the middle, sweating under the glare of a political spotlight, is the FIA.

The “Genius” in the Grey Area

To understand the magnitude of this crisis, one must look beyond the gleaming carbon fiber and delve into the technical weeds of the 2026 power unit regulations. The root of the uproar lies in a seemingly innocuous rule regarding the engine’s compression ratio. The regulations explicitly state a maximum compression ratio of 16.1. On paper, this is a hard limit, a line in the sand designed to cap performance and keep costs in check.

However, the devil, as always in Formula 1, is in the details—or rather, in the testing methodology. The rule mandates that this ratio is measured when the engine is static. That is, when the car is stationary, the engine is cold, and the pistons are not firing at 15,000 RPM. It is a laboratory test, sterile and controlled.

But race cars do not live in laboratories. They live on the track, where temperatures soar and materials are pushed to their breaking points. This is where Mercedes’ engineers found their golden ticket. Relying on basic principles of physics, they realized that metal expands when heated. By designing specific internal components—most notably the connecting rods—to expand in a highly controlled manner under thermal load, they could alter the geometry of the engine while it is running.

As the engine heats up during a race, these components elongate, pushing the piston slightly higher into the cylinder. This action increases the dynamic compression ratio significantly beyond the static limit of 16.1. The result? A estimated boost of 10 to 15 horsepower. In the road car world, that figure might seem negligible. In the razor-thin margins of Formula 1, it is an eternity. It is the difference between pole position and the midfield, between a championship fight and a season of obscurity.

The Haves and the Have-Nots

The brilliance of this solution is matched only by the devastation it has caused among rivals. Mercedes, having pioneered the concept, reportedly approached the FIA early in the development phase. They showed their work, explained the physics, and received the green light. Technically, their engine complies with the written regulations. It passes the static test. It is legal.

Red Bull, ever the opportunists, seemingly caught wind of this philosophy—perhaps through the inevitable migration of engineering talent between teams—and adapted their own 2026 project to follow suit. They, too, are poised to start the new era with this “thermal advantage” baked into their design.

For Ferrari, Honda, and Audi, the realization came too late. Power unit development is not a nimble process; it is a behemoth of long lead times and frozen designs. These manufacturers have already committed to engine architectures based on a traditional reading of the rules. To pivot now, to redesign the core internals of a complex hybrid power unit to exploit thermal expansion, would take months, if not a full year. They are looking at the barrel of a 2026 season where they start with a built-in, structural performance deficit that no amount of driver skill can overcome.

The anger in Maranello and Ingolstadt is palpable. Their argument is not that Mercedes broke the rules, but that they have violated the spirit of them. The compression limit was intended to equalize performance. By bypassing the intent of the rule through a thermal loophole, Mercedes and Red Bull have effectively rendered the regulation useless.

The FIA’s Impossible Choice

This leaves the sport’s governing body, the FIA, in an excruciatingly difficult position. They have reportedly admitted privately that this outcome was not what they intended when they wrote the rulebook. They wanted a level playing field, not a loophole that gifted an advantage to the teams with the cleverest materials scientists.

However, admitting a mistake is very different from fixing it. The FIA cannot simply ban the design now without inviting a legal catastrophe. Mercedes acted in good faith; they sought clarification, received approval, and spent millions developing their engine based on that approval. To ban it now would be to punish a team for being too smart, setting a dangerous precedent that would chill innovation across the grid.

On the other hand, if the FIA does nothing, they risk a 2026 season that is dead on arrival. If Mercedes and Red Bull are lapping the field because of a baked-in engine advantage, viewership will plummet. Liberty Media, the commercial rights holders, are in the business of entertainment. They sell drama, rivalry, and unpredictability. A season decided by an engineering technicality before the first race is bad for business.

The Political Fallout

We are now witnessing the start of a high-stakes game of political poker. Ferrari is known for its willingness to wield its veto power and political influence when it feels threatened. Threats of formal protests are already being whispered in the paddock. The strategy for the “have-nots” is clear: pressure the FIA to issue a technical directive or a rule clarification that closes the loophole immediately, forcing Mercedes and Red Bull to detune their engines or risk disqualification.

Conversely, Mercedes and Red Bull are likely digging in their heels, armed with their FIA approvals and ready to fight any attempt to change the rules mid-game. They will argue that F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport precisely because it rewards this kind of lateral thinking. To penalize them for reading the rules better than Ferrari would be an insult to the sport’s DNA.

A Question of Philosophy

Ultimately, this controversy forces us to ask what we want Formula 1 to be. Do we want a sport that is a pure meritocracy of engineering, where the smartest mind wins, even if it leads to boring races? Or do we want a managed spectacle, where the governing body intervenes to ensure parity and entertainment, even if it means stifling innovation?

The “thermal loophole” of 2026 is not just a technical curiosity; it is a battleground for the soul of the sport. As the teams head toward pre-season testing, the tension is suffocating. The engines may be tested statically, but the paddock is anything but. The friction is heating up, and much like the connecting rods in the Mercedes engine, the pressure is about to expand until something explodes.

For the fans, the 2026 season has already begun. It’s not being fought on the asphalt of Bahrain or Silverstone, but in the meeting rooms of Paris and the wind tunnels of Brackley. And right now, it looks like Mercedes has already taken the checkered flag.

Former Formula 1 world champion Damon Hill called the situation ‘ridiculous’ as one driver was told they would have to serve a grid penalty at the Australian Grand Prix in early March

View Image

Valtteri Bottas will be back on the F1 grid this year with Cadillac(Image: Getty Images)

Former Formula 1 world champion Damon Hill has criticised the “ridiculous” circumstances that mean Valtteri Bottas must serve a penalty when he returns to racing. Following a year away from competition, Bottas will be back on the grid in 2026 after signing with F1 newcomers Cadillac.

Yet his prospects of scoring points straight away will be hindered by a grid penalty he’s required to serve at the season-opening Australian Grand Prix in March. The sanction stems from his final F1 race, driving for Sauber at the 2024 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, where he crashed into Kevin Magnussen – who was also competing in his last race before being dropped by Haas.

Bottas was forced to retire from that race before he could serve a time penalty, resulting in a five-place grid drop for his next Grand Prix appearance. That proved to be the closing event of the 2024 campaign and Bottas, after losing his Sauber drive, spent 2025 working as reserve driver at Mercedes.

The FIA has subsequently amended the sporting regulations so that unserved penalties expire from a driver’s record after 12 months. However, this rule change came into effect after Bottas received his penalty, and the governing body has confirmed they’re powerless to intervene.

An FIA spokesperson clarified: “Currently, the penalty will stand, as there is no mechanism to retroactively amend the penalty that was applied under the regulations in force at the time. The change of regulation is intended to avoid similar anomalous situations in the future.”

This means Bottas will begin his first race for Cadillac five places behind his qualifying position at the Albert Park Circuit, reducing his chances of securing a strong result on debut. In response, 1996 champion Hill expressed his disapproval on his Instagram Story, writing: “How ridiculous.”

The affable 36-year-old Finn is considered an honorary Australian, having been warmly welcomed by the locals. He spends a significant amount of his leisure time Down Under and will be heading south early for another appearance ahead of his inaugural F1 weekend with Cadillac.

Bottas has committed to driving at the Adelaide Motorsport Festival the weekend before the Melbourne event. He is due to take the wheel of a Ferrari 156/85, which competed in the 1985 F1 season. Bottas will drive the chassis that Italian Michele Alboreto raced in that year, and he’s also scheduled to participate in some fan meet-and-greet activities during the multi-day event.

Bottas has had to wait to get behind the wheel of his Cadillac car for the first time. The team did complete a shakedown of their first F1 racing machine at Silverstone last week but, with their mileage limited to just 15km, team-mate Sergio Perez was the only one who got the chance to take it for a spin.

The Mexican said afterwards: “Today was really an amazing day. Everyone should feel incredibly proud to complete our first laps as a team. Each and every person has worked so hard to get to this moment, and it was emotional to be part of motorsport history. We can, and should, all enjoy this, but it absolutely fired me up for more. I just want to get back in and get mileage – this is just the start.”

In the high-stakes world of Formula 1, desperate times often call for radical measures. But what Alpine has just executed goes beyond a simple strategy shift; it is a fundamental rewriting of their identity. The French team, historically synonymous with Renault’s engineering prowess, has officially entered the 2026 era, and they have done so with a German heart beating beneath their chassis.

The events that unfolded this week at a rain-soaked Silverstone circuit mark a turning point not just for the team, but for the sport itself. In a secret shakedown that has since sent ripples through the motorsport community, the new Alpine A526 took to the track. While shakedowns are routine, this one was historic. For the first time since the days of Team Lotus in 2015, an Enstone-based car was not powered by a Renault engine. Instead, the roar echoing off the British asphalt came from a Mercedes power unit.

This moment is the culmination of a brutal, calculated, and controversial journey. To understand the gravity of seeing Pierre Gasly pilot a Mercedes-powered Alpine, one must look back at the sacrificial fire from which this car was born. The 2025 season was, by all accounts, a disaster for Alpine. They finished dead last in the Constructor’s Championship, a humiliation for a factory team with such a rich history. However, as details emerge regarding their 2026 preparations, it is becoming increasingly clear that the pain of 2025 was not a failure of ability, but a deliberate price paid for future glory.

The Great Sacrifice: Giving Up to Get Ahead

The narrative surrounding Alpine’s abysmal 2025 campaign is shifting. It wasn’t just a bad year; it was a strategic surrender. Reports indicate that the team abandoned development of their 2025 challenger as early as June, redirecting every ounce of resource, engineering talent, and wind tunnel time toward the 2026 regulations.

In the hyper-competitive environment of F1, standing still is equivalent to moving backward. By halting development, Alpine accepted their fate at the back of the grid, enduring a season of criticism and poor results. But was it worth it? The early data from the A526 suggests a resounding yes.

Insiders report that the new car has already hit the minimum weight target of 768 kilograms. In the complex world of F1 engineering, this is a massive achievement. When the previous major regulation changes were introduced in 2022, almost every team on the grid struggled with overweight cars, costing them valuable tenths of a second per lap. If Alpine is indeed starting the 2026 era at the ideal weight while rivals struggle to shed pounds, they possess an immediate, tangible advantage before the lights even go out in Melbourne.

The Mercedes Factor: A Deal with the Devil?

Perhaps the most shocking aspect of this transformation is the engine itself. Renault, the parent company, made the heart-wrenching decision to shutter its F1 engine program. The costs required to develop a new power unit for the complex 2026 regulations—which feature a near 50/50 split between electric and internal combustion power—were deemed too high.

This decision was initially met with skepticism and viewed by many as an admission of defeat. How could a proud French manufacturer rely on Mercedes, their direct rival, for power? Yet, as the reality of the 2026 grid takes shape, this choice looks increasingly shrewd. Alpine has secured a deal that runs until at least 2030, guaranteeing them the same specification power unit used by the factory Mercedes team, as well as McLaren and Williams.

Considering McLaren’s recent dominance and the persistent rumors that Mercedes has found a “silver bullet” performance advantage with their new engine, Alpine has effectively vaulted themselves into a prime position. They have bypassed the risk of developing a potentially inferior engine in-house and instead strapped themselves to what is widely expected to be the class of the field. If the Mercedes engine is the rocket ship many predict, Alpine’s chassis department simply needs to build a decent car to be competitive—something the Enstone team has proven capable of in the past.

A New Era of Leadership and Drivers

The changes at Alpine are not limited to hardware. The human element has undergone a similarly drastic overhaul. The controversial Flavio Briatore is back in the fold, bringing his signature aggressive management style. Briatore’s reputation is polarizing, to say the least, but his track record of winning championships is undeniable. His influence is already being felt in the decisive—and ruthless—nature of the team’s recent moves.

On the driving front, Pierre Gasly remains the steady hand. Having endured the team’s difficult period, he has emerged as a true leader. His feedback during the Silverstone shakedown will be critical. Beside him sits Franco Colapinto, a wild card in every sense. The Argentine driver showed flashes of genuine speed during his stint with Williams, but his introduction to F1 was chaotic and error-prone.

Hiring Colapinto is another gamble. Alpine’s Managing Director, Steve Nielsen, has publicly stated that Colapinto needs time to mature and deliver consistent points. In a season where the team expects to fight at the front, there is no room for a rookie learning curve. The pressure on Colapinto to convert his raw pace into reliable results will be immense from day one.

The Technical Frontier

The 2026 regulations represent the biggest technical upheaval in recent F1 history. Cars are smaller, lighter, and feature active aerodynamics that allow wings to adjust mid-lap. The reliance on sustainable fuels and the increased electrical power output completely changes the driving characteristics.

Leaked fan footage of the A526 navigating the wet Silverstone circuit gave us our first glimpse of this new breed of car. It looks different, sounds different, and behaves differently. By being one of the first teams to get their 2026 challenger on track—following Audi, Cadillac, and Racing Bulls—Alpine is maximizing their data gathering. In a sport where data is currency, these early laps in the British rain are invaluable.

The Verdict: Genius or Madness?

Alpine is scheduled to officially launch the A526 on a cruise ship off the coast of Barcelona, a flashy venue that matches their renewed ambition. But the real test will not be the glamour of the launch or the secretive laps at Silverstone; it will be the first race of the season.

The team has stripped itself down to the foundation and rebuilt itself with parts from former rivals. They have sacrificed their pride as an engine manufacturer and endured a humiliating season in the cellar of the standings. They have handed the keys to a controversial figure from the past and a volatile rookie driver.

It is a strategy fraught with risk. If the Mercedes engine is not dominant, or if the chassis fails to perform, Alpine will have sold its soul for nothing. But if the gamble pays off—if the weight advantage holds, the engine screams, and the drivers deliver—Alpine could pull off one of the greatest turnarounds in sporting history.

For years, Alpine has been accused of being content with mediocrity, of aiming for fourth place and settling for fifth. Those days appear to be over. The decisions made over the last twelve months are not the actions of a team happy to make up the numbers. They are the actions of a team desperate to win, regardless of the cost. The A526 is real, the Mercedes engine is running, and the “French” team has never looked more dangerous.

The waiting game is finally over, and the dawn of a new Formula 1 era has officially broken with the unveiling of the Mercedes-AMG F1 W17 E-Performance. But as the covers were pulled back at Brackley, revealing a striking new aesthetic, the chatter in the paddock wasn’t just about the paint job. It was about fear.

Mercedes has not just launched a car; they may have launched a pre-emptive strike on the entire 2026 championship. Amidst the flashing cameras and the gleam of the new “Zebra” livery, a storm is brewing over a rumored technical loophole that could see the Silver Arrows return to the crushing dominance of the 2014 turbo-hybrid era.

The “Zebra” Earns Its Stripes

First, let’s address the visual spectacle. The W17 is a head-turner. Mercedes has moved away from a solid block of color to a dynamic, flowing design that fans are already dubbing the “Zebra.” The iconic Mercedes silver transitions seamlessly into deep black, bisected by a sweeping Petronas green flow line. This isn’t just for show; the team claims the line emphasizes speed and precision.

Adding to the aggressive look is a new geometric “rhombus signature” on the sidepods, a nod to AMG’s road car heritage, while the engine cover retains the classic three-pointed star pattern. It is a machine that looks fast standing still—a psychological weapon as much as an aerodynamic one. But the true weapon, insiders suggest, is hidden deep within the chassis.

The Controversy: A “Genius” Loophole?

The headline story of the 2026 regulations is the massive shift in power units, with a near 50/50 split between electric and combustion power. However, rumors have been swirling for weeks that Mercedes has found a “grey area” in the combustion rules—specifically regarding compression ratios.

The controversy centers on the connecting rods. Reports suggest Mercedes has designed these components to expand significantly when the engine reaches operating temperature. Why does this matter? By expanding, the rods effectively push the piston higher, increasing the compression ratio beyond the static limit measured when the engine is cold.

If true, this “variable compression” trick is a masterstroke of engineering interpretation. Estimates suggest it could unlock an additional 10 to 15 horsepower. In the tight world of F1, that translates to roughly a quarter of a second per lap—a lifetime in qualifying terms.

Rivals in Panic Mode

This potential advantage has not gone unnoticed. Rival manufacturers, including Ferrari, Audi, and Honda, have reportedly expressed grave concerns to the FIA. They fear that Mercedes has effectively “baked in” an unfair advantage before a single wheel has turned in anger.

However, the situation is complicated. Insiders suggest that Mercedes was transparent with the FIA from the start, seeking clarification on the regulations before committing to the design. This makes any retroactive ban extremely difficult to implement for the upcoming season. The FIA has met with manufacturers, but for now, it appears the W17 remains legal. If this loophole holds, not only the factory Mercedes team but also their customers—Williams, McLaren, and Alpine—could start the season with a significant leg up on the competition. That means nearly half the grid (8 out of 20 cars) could be running with a “super-engine.”

The Human Element: Pressure Cooker at Brackley

While the engineers have been busy, the human drama at Mercedes is equally compelling. Toto Wolff, ever the strategist, remained characteristically measured at the launch. There were no bombastic claims of victory, no arrogance—just a quiet, terrifying confidence. He emphasized that the team is prepared for the “innovation and absolute focus” required by the new rules. It was a statement that said less is more: We know what we have.

On the driving front, George Russell enters the season as the undisputed team leader. With a one-year contract, he is racing for his future, aiming to cement his status as a championship contender. He is no longer the apprentice; he is the spearhead.

Alongside him is the young prodigy, Kimi Antonelli, entering his sophomore season. After a rookie year of learning, the pressure is now on the Italian to convert raw talent into consistent points. His development is critical, but with a car like the W17 potentially underneath him, he has the best tool possible to prove his worth.

A New Dynasty?

The parallels to 2014 are impossible to ignore. That year marked the last major regulation overhaul, and Mercedes arrived so prepared, so technologically superior, that they locked out the sport for nearly a decade. The 2026 reset offers a similar opportunity.

With a major new sponsor in Microsoft joining the team and a stable technical leadership under James Allison, the infrastructure at Brackley is primed for success. The W17 represents the culmination of years of preparation for this exact moment.

Of course, the stopwatch never lies. The true pecking order will only emerge once pre-season testing begins in Barcelona. The shakedowns and filming days are just teasers; Barcelona is where the engines will be turned up, and the truth will come out.

But for now, the message from Mercedes is clear. They haven’t just built a new car; they may have outsmarted the rulebook. If the W17 is as fast as it looks, and if that engine “trick” delivers the promised power, F1 fans might need to brace themselves. The Silver Arrows aren’t just back; they might be untouchable.

BREAKING NEWS! Starmer ANGRILY DEPORTS 3,000 Migrants in a Harsh Crackdown Aimed at Winning Voter Support

JUST IN! In a 𝓈𝒽𝓸𝒸𝓀𝒾𝓃𝑔 move, Home Secretary Keir Starmer has ordered the immediate deportation of 3,000 migrants in a ruthless crackdown aimed at addressing public frustration over foreign criminals exploiting the legal system. This dramatic shift in immigration policy is designed to secure voter support ahead of upcoming elections.

The announcement follows a tense confrontation between the Home Office and advocates for migrant rights, igniting a fierce debate about Britain’s approach to immigration. A Home Office spokesperson declared, “We will not allow foreign criminals and illegal migrants to exploit our laws,” signaling a new era of strict enforcement.

Starmer’s strategy includes sweeping reforms to human rights laws, aiming to prevent foreign nationals from using legal loopholes to evade deportation. The government is determined to make Britain less appealing to illegal migrants and expedite the removal of those without legal standing.

This crackdown is not merely rhetoric; it represents a fundamental shift in how the UK handles immigration. All foreign national offenders receiving prison sentences will be referred for deportation at the earliest opportunity, effectively sidelining lengthy appeals that have frustrated the public for years.

The Home Office’s decisive action comes amid growing public demand for tougher immigration enforcement. Polls indicate that a significant majority of citizens support the deportation of foreign criminals and the removal of illegal migrants, underscoring a shift in public sentiment.

As the government moves forward, it draws comparisons to other countries facing similar challenges. Pakistan, for instance, has ramped up deportations of Afghan refugees amidst rising security concerns, demonstrating a zero-tolerance approach to illegal residency.

In the past two days alone, over 7,000 Afghan refugees were deported from Pakistan and Iran, illustrating the urgency of national security. Pakistan’s actions have sparked debates about human rights, yet the government remains steadfast, prioritizing national safety over international criticism.

While Britain is not experiencing the same level of security threats as Pakistan, it faces its own challenges, including foreign criminals and illegal migrants exploiting the legal system. Starmer’s reforms aim to address these issues head-on, ensuring that those who break the law face swift consequences.

The proposed changes to human rights laws are expected to close loopholes that have allowed foreign criminals to delay deportation indefinitely. By streamlining the process, the government hopes to restore public trust and demonstrate a commitment to law and order.

This move is being closely watched, as it could redefine the landscape of immigration policy in the UK. The Home Office is determined to act decisively, ensuring that the legal system no longer serves as a refuge for those who have no right to remain in the country.

As tensions rise and the debate intensifies, the government’s crackdown is likely to become a focal point in the run-up to the next election. Starmer’s strategy may resonate with voters who are increasingly frustrated by perceived leniency in immigration enforcement.

In this pivotal moment, the stakes are high, and the outcome of this crackdown could have far-reaching implications for the future of immigration policy in Britain. As the situation unfolds, all eyes will be on the Home Office and its commitment to enforcing the rule of law.

LOCKED IN TO ÐIE? An emergency exit was “𝐚𝐥𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐝,” a bartender has claimed — as investigators probe the deadly Swiss ski resort inferno

A criminal investigation was launched yesterday into the French owners of the Swiss ski bar engulfed by a deadly inferno on New Year’s Eve, amid claims that an emergency exit at the venue was ‘always locked’.

Police announced that Jacques Moretti, 49, and his wife Jessica, 40, were being investigated on suspicion of manslaughter by negligence, bodily harm and arson after a horrific blaze killed 40 and injured 119.

The inferno at Le Constellation in the Alpine resort of Crans–Montana erupted in the venue’s basement bar when sparklers in champagne bottles set a ceiling covered in insulation foam alight.

Harrowing video footage showed revellers, many of whom were teenagers, continuing to party as the flames spread across the ceiling, losing crucial seconds during which they could have fled.

The venue was branded a ‘deathtrap’ after it emerged that partygoers squeezed up a narrow staircase to escape the flames and toxic smoke in the basement.

But in a major development, it was yesterday claimed there was another potential escape route via an emergency exit within the basement – but that it was allegedly always locked.

Andrea, 31, a bartender who works elsewhere in the resort but was a regular at Le Constellation, told German newspaper Bild: ‘There was an entrance that also served as an exit. And there was an emergency exit. But whenever I was there, it was always locked.

‘Everyone in town knew things were bound to go wrong eventually.

‘The emergency exit was in a separate smoking room. Hardly anyone used it; most went up to the conservatory. The smoking room was used as a kind of storage room. There was a sofa inside in front of the door, and carelessly discarded objects lay outside.’

Pictured: 16–year–old girl Chiara Costanzo, from Milan, Italy, was the second person to be named as a victim

A makeshift memorial outside the ‘Le Constellation’ bar following the fire

Another witness, Grigori, who was on his way to the bar when the fire erupted, and whose friend is among the missing, said: ‘There’s another exit, but I think they were locking it because some people were escaping without paying.’

Read More

Pictured: How Swiss bar owners renovated club themselves – as they say they are ‘very unwell’

The Mail on Sunday has also identified a third exit on the ground floor of the bar, which led into a covered shopping area that includes a ski rental shop.

Anyone using that exit would then, however, have to go through another glass door to escape on to the street. It is unclear whether either of those doors were open or locked when the fire started at 1.30am.

The revelations came as a 16–year–old girl from Milan, Italy, was the second person to be named as a victim. Chiara Costanzo’s father, Andrea, told an Italian newspaper he felt a ‘great emptiness’ after receiving a call ‘that should never come to a father’.

‘Until the very end we hoped that Chiara was among the injured admitted to the hospital but not yet identified,’ he said. ‘Then, without warning, the world collapses. You’re never ready. You can’t be.

‘It’s unnatural for a father to lose a daughter. I wish she wasn’t ‘just’ a name on a list of victims. Because she was never a number. She was a beloved daughter.’

Italian national Emanuele Galeppini, 17 and a golf prodigy, was the first victim to be reported dead, with the news confirmed by the Italian Golf Federation on Friday.

Police yesterday said eight Swiss victims had been identified and their bodies released to their families. They are four women and four men, including two 16–year–olds.

Dozens of families, however, continue to face an agonising wait as experts attempt to identify the remaining 30 victims and five of the most seriously injured.

The entrance of the bar Le Constellation where a fire ripped through the venue during New Year’s Eve celebrations in the Alpine ski resort town of Crans–Montana

Mourners hug alongside floral tributes to the victims of the fire near the bar in Crans–Montana

Swiss justice minister Beat Jans (second from the right) looks at the tributes to the victims

A firefighter pays tribute to the victims of the deadly fire at the Le Constellation bar in Crans–Montana, Switzerland

A photo appears to show the moment champagne sparklers set fire to material on the ceiling of the Swiss nightclub

Footage shows the deadly flashover, when extreme heat caused everything inside the enclosed space to ignite almost at once, that left people little chance to flee

‘It’s a wait that destroys people’s stability,’ said Elvira Venturella, an Italian psychologist working with the families. Those missing include French–born Charlotte Niddam, 15, who attended Immanuel College, a private Jewish school in Hertfordshire, and the Jewish Free School in North London.

Read More

Firefighters who braved Swiss ski resort inferno honour victims they couldn’t save

One of her friends, Summer Chesler, yesterday posted a video montage showing the pair dancing together with the caption: ‘I miss my best friend.’

Another friend, Sophie, shared a separate TikTok video with a caption that read: ‘My heart has broken. Please come home Charlotte, we are all waiting for you.’

Sixteen–year–old Arthur Brodard is also among the missing. His mother Laetitia, from Lausanne, Switzerland, said: ‘There are five unidentified people in hospital [but] the authorities refuse to tell us where they are, in which country, in which canton. Anger is starting to rise. There are more than 30 parents looking for our children.’

Stephane Ganzer, state councillor in charge of the Department of Security, said the identification of victims was ‘a top priority’, acknowledging the ‘unbearable wait’ endured by families.

Mr Moretti yesterday appeared for the first time since the tragedy, near a restaurant he owns in the nearby village of Lens. He refused to answer questions from the MoS.

Meanwhile, last night’s episode of ITV’s The Masked Singer scrapped a performance of the song Disco Inferno, which featured dancers in fire suits, ‘owing to potential insensitivities’.