Kimi Antonelli has his first opportunity to secure the 2026 drivers' championship at this weekend's United States Grand Prix in Austin.
Antonelli must win the race with Mercedes team-mate George Russell finishing ninth or lower and Ferrari's Lewis Hamilton fifth or lower.
Austin is the first of six races scheduled to take place between now and the end of the season in December.
BBC F1 correspondent Andrew Benson answers your latest questions before the race in Texas.
Will Liam Lawson get the Racing Bulls seat for next year? - Chris
Racing Bulls are one of only two teams where the 2027 driver line-up is not finalised. The other is Haas, where Oliver Bearman has not yet been confirmed alongside new signing Rafael Camara, although that is only a matter of time.
At Racing Bulls, it's a three-don't-fit-into-two situation, with current race drivers Liam Lawson and Arvid Lindblad in the frame along with Red Bull junior driver Nikola Tsolov, the Bulgarian who is second in the Formula 2 championship at the moment.
This is the first time in Red Bull history that Helmut Marko is not in charge of driver choice at the junior team and it's unclear what approach they will take under the new management.
In the past, one might have expected them to drop Lawson, on the basis that he has had his chance and is not likely to be considered a long-term candidate for a full-time seat at Red Bull, and put Tsolov in alongside Lindblad.
But there is an argument that the Red Bull young driver programme has been mismanaged for 20 years by Marko and former team boss Christian Horner and they should take a more considered, patient, methodological approach.
In the past, Marko and Horner took a very ruthless approach. A driver would get a shot, and if they did not deliver pretty much immediately, they were dropped.
On one level, it made sense - they were looking for world-class drivers who could lead Red Bull. And if a driver was not that level, they felt they had no use for them.
But at the same time, it sometimes meant putting two unknown quantities together, which made it harder to judge the quality of either.
An alternative approach might be to keep a known-quality benchmark on board against which it is easier to judge the ability of a newcomer.
On that basis, it would make sense to keep Lawson and Lindblad together for 2027 and make Tsolov the reserve, put him in the simulator and give him some tests in older cars to provide him with F1 experience.
The reasoning is that while Lindblad's debut season has been impressive in patches, Lawson is consistently quicker at the moment, both in qualifying and in races.
So if Lindblad is to be considered a future candidate for Red Bull, this argument would go, he should be given an extra season to prove whether he can consistently beat Lawson. Because if he can't, the obvious conclusion is that he is not a candidate for the senior team.
If they put Tsolov in with Lindblad, they have two unknown quantities, which helps no-one in the bigger picture.
A decision has not yet been taken, and ultimately it rests with the shareholders, Chalerm Yoovidhya and Mark Mateschitz, with under them Red Bull CEO Oliver Mintzlaff, who is in overall charge of the F1 programme.
Why is F1 going to another country, Rwanda, with what can only be described as very poor human rights? Is this another case of if you have the cash we'll come to your country irrespective of significant international concern regarding the suppression of political dissent, press freedom and the country's military involvement in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo? - Paul
Formula 1's owner Liberty Media has been looking to establish a race in Africa since it took over the sport in 2017.
It was the one glaring omission from the calendar, and the race in Rwanda will give F1 a presence on every single inhabited continent, as well as access to a largely untapped market.
But finding a country that is suitable to be a host has not been easy.
Various possibilities were investigated. There was a project in Morocco near Tangier, but that didn't have the necessary finance.
At one point, F1 looked quite close to a deal to return to Kyalami in South Africa for the first time since 1993, but there were issues with the promoter.
There are currently as many as four separate projects in South Africa, including Kyalami and two in Cape Town. But they are all too far away from being realistic possibilities.
Many - if not most - grands prix are funded by governments in one way or another, so it's hardly a surprise that the one African bid to come to fruition has government backing.
It's a sensitive situation because Rwanda receives international aid, and the government and F1 have been keen to emphasise that the funding is coming from a newly established development fund combining public and private investment.
Then there are the accusations of 'sportswashing' - a term given to the use of major sports events to distract from aspects of the country's conduct that parts of the wider international community find problematic.
Rwanda is the subject of a case brought by its neighbour, the Democratic Republic of Congo, at the International Court of Justice, accusing it of breaching multiple international treaties covering genocide prevention, racial discrimination, women's rights and torture.
DRC's Minister of Foreign Affairs Therese Kayikwamba Wagner issued a statement last week to say that while DR Congo supported the idea of a grand prix in Africa, they were opposed to Rwanda being its host.
She accused Rwanda President Paul Kagame of "fuelling a devastating war in our country", adding that wars in the DRC have claimed millions of lives, that people continue to be driven from their homes and Congolese natural resources exploited and appropriated.
The statement also pointed out that the US has imposed sanctions on Rwanda's military and senior officials because of their involvement in supporting the M23 rebel group in the DRC, undermining a peace agreement.
Kayikwamba Wagner added: "This is also an opportunity for F1 to show its audiences and supporters what the sport truly stands for. It should require credible, independent guarantees that no money used to host the race comes from conflict-linked minerals or the exploitation of Congolese resources."
An F1 spokesperson said: "We have a long track record of delivering significant economic, social and cultural value to our host nations.
"Through this race we have the opportunity to inspire and bring the passion of F1 to our more than 100 million fans across Africa and firmly believe that sport can be a positive force for good.
"When racing around the world we ensure the exceptional standards, values and integrity of the sport are shared and delivered by both promoters and partners.
"As we've seen, sport can be a huge driver of change and unifying force and look forward to the positive impact that the African Grand Prix will have."
If Imola is the back-up track for the last race and is being prepared for that, who's paying for the work? Surely not the track? - Joe
Imola is being readied as a potential host for the final grand prix of the season on 4-6 December if the two races in Qatar and Abu Dhabi cannot be held.
At the moment, F1 is pressing ahead with the Middle Eastern races, having been given what it considers suitable security guarantees and reassurances.
F1 is being advised that there have been no attacks on civilian infrastructure in Qatar or the United Arab Emirates since May.
But the sport is aware that the situation in the Middle East is unpredictable and volatile, and is bracing itself for a potential escalation after the US mid-term elections, which will be held on 3 November.
In addition to the war between the US/Israel and Iran, Saudi Arabia is currently engaged in a conflict with the Houti rebels in Yemen.
It remains the case, though, that if the Houtis can hit the Saudi Arabia capital Riyadh with a missile strike, or facilities belonging to oil company Aramco - an F1 sponsor - in Dhahran, or the country's east-west oil pipeline, then their missiles could also reach the locations of the two final grands prix of the season.
F1 is aware of the possibility that US President Donald Trump could take actions that intensify the conflict in the region after the mid-terms, and that's why Imola is being readied as a back-up.
F1 has an agreement with Imola that it will cover any costs it has incurred in setting up for the grand prix if it does not happen.
If, as seems likely, the Red Bull/Ford engine turns out to be as good as, if not better, than the Mercedes one, will customer teams want to buy it, and would Red Bull consider supplying it to them? - Mike
The F1 engine regulations contain clauses that require manufacturers to supply engines to customers if so requested, but not in their first season.
At the moment, there are two manufacturers which supply only one team - Honda (Aston Martin) and Audi - and Red Bull who supply two, both in-house.
Mercedes supply four (McLaren, Alpine and Williams, in addition to the works team), and Ferrari three (Haas and Cadillac as well as the factory outfit).
The rules state that the obligation to supply a team without an engine falls initially on the engine manufacturer with the least customers, although these things are all subject to negotiation.
At the moment, there is no team looking for an engine.
However, it is well known in F1 that Aston Martin owner Lawrence Stroll earlier this year explored the possibility of ditching Honda before deciding to stick with them following their difficult start to the season.
And while this is now hedging into the area of speculation, it's not hard to imagine Stroll coming back to that idea if Honda doesn’t make a major step forward in performance and competitiveness over the winter.
In that scenario, then, yes, it's likely that Red Bull and Mercedes would be the manufacturers he approached. And with Mercedes being full - and wanting to cut their supplies to two customers rather than three for the next engine regulations - Red Bull would definitely be an option.