Formula One racing in many ways is in rude health. With 24 Grand Prix weekends a year, there is on average a race every other weekend to engage the fans of the sport. Yet the sport has deep rooted problems it must solve, one being the Frankenstein monsters coming to power the prototype racing machines next year.

There’s an election coming later this year and it will be to confirm an extension to the tenure of the current FIA president or replace him with someone else. Most F1 fans probably do not appreciate the reach of the FIA and its constituents who will decide on who is the next president for four more years.

There are hundreds of different groups all around the world. Not every country is necessarily represented with a formally recognised FIA association group and of these members just a select few of are actually regarded as motorsport groups – a great number of them are motorist service organisations or touring groups, concerned more with road travel than competition.

 

 

 

FIA move to codify decisions

These are the people who decide on the person who will sit in the Place de Concorde and govern much of the motorsport world. Mohammed Ben Sulayem was the first FIA president in some 50 years who had no prior connections with Formula One. Yet this was his appeal to the member associations across the world, many of whom believe F1 consumes all the oxygen in the room, leaving little or no time to focus on their individual needs and wants.

Yet the FIA under the Emirati has changed significantly in terms of its relationship with Formula One. The rules of engagement on track for the drivers have become increasingly codified in some futile effort to remove the ‘grey’ areas which at times create entrenched disputes in the paddock.

The ban on jewellery being worn in the cockpit has been reinforced together with the strict new sanctions against drivers wearing ‘lucky’ underpants. There are now severe sanctions now for a driver using bad language and significant fines for being late for the playing of the host nations national anthem. In some ways it feels as though the FIA is now taking itself too seriously in a legislative fashion whilst ignoring what actually matters to the fans – the on track action.

The 2025 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix was its usual predictable affair once qualifying was finished, although the fascination of watching the drivers hurtle between the walls of the fastest street circuit on the F1 calendar is in itself mesmerising. There was a modicum of surprise that the pole sitter didn’t go on to win the race as has been the case in all but one Grand Prix along the Jeddah corniche.

Red Bull new evidence regarding Verstappen penalty

 

 

 

The “right” to the corner rule

Prior to lighted out, the expectations were for Verstappen to lead the race after the first corner, the McLaren’s almost infinitely superior lack of tyre degradation would see Oscar Piastri run longer than the Red Bull and thus create an advantage for when they decided to make their one and only pit stop for fresh rubber.

Yet the shortest hold of the field before lights out saw the Australian driver respond with lightening reactions whilst Verstappen by his own high standard missed a beat. This led to the controversial move by the world champion trying to retain his position at turn one which saw Piastri use the whole of the track whilst Verstappen was forced to run wide to retain his lead from the start.

This brought into play the new codified regulations regarding which driver has the “right” to the corner, which is ambiguously measured by who reaches the apex of the turn first. The apex of each turn on an F1 circuit is not delineated with any kind of marked point but decided upon by the stewards and is therefore a judgement call at best.

Whilst there is a general acceptance that the stewards should be extremely lenient on matters of track limits violations and other potential misdemeanours on lap one of a Grand Prix, Verstappen was hit with a five second penalty for not volunteering to hand the race lead to his McLaren rival.

The Mistake Max Won’t Admit

 

 

 

Safety car leaves RBR no time to decide

In Jeddah this was complicated further by the fact that Yuki Tsunoda and Pierre Gasly had a fatal coming together which brought out the safety car before the drivers had completed their first tour of the track.

Under safety car regulations, race positions must be strictly maintained and to that end Red Bull had little time to decide whether they should allow Piastri through or instruct their driver to retain the lead of the race. In reality this was never a decision the Red Bull pit wall wold have made given the expectations that with the superior tyre management of the McLaren cars, allowing Piastri through would have seen him disappear off into the distance – race over.

As things panned out, Verstappen’s penalty resulted in merely deciding come the pit stops, Oscar would assume the lead of the race with the resulting victory at 50 different circuits for McLaren –  a first in F1 history. Yet it was the stewards decision which consumed the paddock during the post race broadcasts with the British media predictably favouring the anti-Verstappen position that the penalty was more than justified.

The stewards made a feeble attempt to suggest they had followed the ‘first lap leniency’ policy by issuing Max with a reduced five second time penalty which they say otherwise would have been double the amount. Yet it was a stewards decision which decided the victor in Saudi Arabia, never the result the teams, drivers and fans want to see.

Norris mental demons exposed

 

 

 

Ever tighter regulations lead to gaming the system

In what many are now viewing interestingly as the ‘golden era’ of F1 race management by the FIA, there has been much talk about ‘what would Charlie Whiting have done?’ The longest standing FIA appointed F1 race director and safety officer had a less codified approach to these issues and would have potentially offered the Red Bull team the opportunity to ‘give the place back’.

As already stated, Red Bull would most probably have refused this opportunity, believing Verstappen’s best chance was to run in clean air and build a gap to the field which would nullify any incoming time penalty. Ironically this would have raised the temperature in the paddock and come the race reviews it would be Red Bull who were the centre of attention, not a decision made by race control.

By codifying who has the ‘right to the corner’ merely forces drivers to game the system as did Verstappen at the 2024 US GP. Having been passed by Lando Norris on the outside of the long back straight in COTA, the Red Bull driver made a last minute lunge down the inside to claim the apex of the turn and despite leaving the McLaren driver no room to remain on track it was Norris who received a penalty from the stewards.

The problem with this particular rule is that the driver on the inside is always the favourite to make the apex, given his car has far less distance to cover. Further, even if the driver on the inside makes the apex first, they can do so in a fashion which is completely out of control and it is legal for them to then leave the circuit completely with only one track limits strike against their name.

Treachery accusations of Red Bull, but their strategist pulled off a ‘coup’

 

 

 

Make the F1 teams decided

Had Piastri romped to victory in Saudi Arabia, all this would have been moot, yet with Verstappen finishing the Grand Prix just 2.5 seconds behind the McLaren driver, the five second penalty is now the stark difference between deciding who was P1 and who was P2.

A motor race is a living, breathing, ever evolving organism and any attempt to regulate for every potential eventually is a fools game. Of course there must be rules of engagement, but the current position of the FIA detail every potential transgression is absurd.

Had the decision on the Jeddah turn one incident been left to the discretion of the race stewards, of course there would be have been  an equally strong response from the paddock whichever way they leant. Yet controversial decisions by the referees in all sports are never far from the headlines but to create regulations which are intended to cover off each and every minuscule transgression is a folly, as football is finding out with its VAR review system.

This particular incident where the stewards must decide who has ‘the right’ to the corner will repeat itself a number of times throughout the coming season. Yet it is the drivers and the teams who will decide on what benefits them most – take the penalty or rescind the position on track. Race control offering them publicly via team radio to make this call, would firmly place the responsibility on the teams rather than the policemen of the rules, who otherwise will inevitably receive criticism whatever they decide.

Italian press turn on Hamilton

 

 

 

 

FIA changes to 2026 regulations labelled “a joke’ by Toto Wolf

There’s big trouble in Formula One land as the introduction of the next era of Formula One power units are just over eight months away. As predicted by a number of F1 observers the attempt to make the total output from the electrical side of the hybrid engines equal to that of the combustion engine is causing severe headaches for a number of the manufacturers.

Such is the crisis the FIA president signalled this year he was in favour of a swift return to F1 using V10 combustion engines with Red Bull and Ferrari strongly in favour of such a proposal. Audi responded with a resounding ‘NO’ to these proposals stating the very reason they are building their first F1 power unit is due to the current regulations and their emphasis on electrical output.

Back in the summer of 2023, Christian Horner raised questions over the sense of requiring the new F1 power to be 50% electrical, suggesting at circuits with long straights like Monza, the combustion engine would merely be used for much of the time as a generator of electrical power…. READ MORE