Lawson has more points than Alpine’s drivers combined, so why is his seat still unresolved?
Photo: Red Bull Content Pool
Ben Hunt is an award-winning motorsport journalist with over two decades of experience in Formula 1 and international media. As a former editor-in-chief and bestselling author, he delivers in-depth analysis and strategic insight from the highest level of the sport.
Liam Lawson’s strongest argument for remaining in Formula 1 is not a public declaration or a single eye-catching qualifying result. It is a championship total that puts him ahead of both Alpine drivers combined.
Lawson sits ninth in the drivers’ standings with 87 points. Pierre Gasly has 42 and Franco Colapinto 27, giving Alpine’s pair a combined 69. Lawson’s individual total is therefore 18 points higher.
That comparison does not account for differences between the cars. It cannot, on its own, establish which driver has performed better. But it does demonstrate the scale of the contribution Racing Bulls would be replacing if it chose not to retain the New Zealander.
With his future still unresolved, that is a significant starting point.
Brazil strengthened a case that already existed
ADVERTISEMENT
As GPblog reported after the Brazilian Grand Prix, Lawson qualified third with assistance from penalties elsewhere and finished seventh, ahead of Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton.
The result strengthened his argument for a 2027 seat, although no final decision had been made. Team principal Alan Permane is understood to favour retaining him. Lawson has also publicly acknowledged the support he has received from his boss.
Yet the wider championship picture shows why Brazil should not be treated as an isolated audition. Lawson’s points total reflects contributions accumulated across the season.
One strong Sunday can change the mood around a driver, but teams also need to assess whether that performance fits a sustained record.
His position ahead of Gasly and Colapinto combined provides a useful illustration of that broader record, even with the necessary caveat about machinery.
ADVERTISEMENT
For Racing Bulls, the decision is consequently about more than whether another driver might possess exciting potential. It is also about how much proven scoring ability the team is prepared to exchange for that potential.
Red Bull’s development model creates a different calculation
Laurent Mekies has said Racing Bulls makes its own driver decisions, while explaining that the shared junior programme gives Red Bull opportunities to promote drivers who develop successfully.
That creates two overlapping considerations: the immediate interests of Racing Bulls and the longer-term development of drivers within the organisation.
ADVERTISEMENT
An established points scorer may be valuable to the first objective. Giving an emerging prospect a chance may serve the second.
Those priorities do not always produce an obvious answer. Lawson’s latest message amid the uncertainty surrounding his future has therefore arrived at a moment when his results deserve as much attention as his words.
There are limits to what the public evidence can establish. Points do not reveal every detail of technical feedback, consistency, contractual considerations or the alternatives available to the team.
Nor does a strong total guarantee a contract, however, it changes the burden of the sporting argument. Retaining Lawson would mean keeping a driver who has demonstrated that he can turn opportunities into a substantial championship return.
ADVERTISEMENT
Replacing him would mean believing someone else can offer enough additional value to justify losing that evidence. Brazil made Lawson harder to overlook while his season total explains why that should already have been the case.
Don’t miss GPblog in Google
Mark us as a preferred source and our articles will appear more often at the top of Top Stories.
Add as a preferred / source on Google