Oscar Piastri’s run of poor form continued at the 2025 Sau Palo Grand Prix where a mistake in the Sprint saw him befriend the barriers at turn three early in the race.

Come qualifying the Australian could only manage a distant fourth to his team mate who claimed pole. He started the race behind Kimi Antonelli and Charles Leclerc and was fortunate in the turn one melee not to find himself tangled up with Antonelli on the run down to turn two.

Following an early safety car caused by Brazilian Gabriel Bortoletto, at the restart Kimi Antonelli in second place was a little right foot heavy and suffered a small amount of wheel spin, allowing Charles Leclerc and Oscar Piastri to challenge him into turn one.

 

 

 

Piastri penalty inevitable

Leclerc attempted to mitigate his position as best he could by taking a wide line around the outside. Piastri attacked Antonelli on the inside and prior to to the braking zone was alongside the Mercedes driver.

Yet Antonelli braked a little later and tightened his line towards the apex where Piastri was heading. Realising he could not make the move the McLaren driver attempted to back out but locked up, lost traction and hit the side of the Mercedes car.

This launched Antonelli into Charles Leclerc’s Ferrari, stripping the front left tyre from the wheel rim and forcing him to retire down at turn four. Piastri tried to build a lead with the inevitable penalty incoming from the stewards, but he did not have the pace of his team mate who was soon five seconds down the road.

The inevitable ten second penalty arrived which compromised Piastri’s race, pushing him down into a net P5 where the remained until the chequered flag. The decision from the stewards was the correct one, despite numerous analysts arguing after the race the matter should have been treated as a racing incident.

Hamilton plays the race card again

 

 

 

The decision was in line with the rules

The reason the decision was correct is because it was based on the FIA driving standards guidelines conjured up in recent years. When overtaking on the inside, the attacking driver must have his front axle at least level with the victim’s wing mirror before they are entitled to be left room.

Further the car must be driven in a “fully controlled manner,” particularly from the entry to the apex, without “diving in” as well as a “reasonable racing line” being taken. The move must be completed within track limits.

For overtaking on the outside which is considered a more difficult manoeuvre, to be entitled to room including at the corner exit, the overtaking car must have its front axle ahead of the front axle of the other car as well as being driven in a “controlled manner” from entry to apex to exit and making the corner within track limits.

Stella reveals Piastri’s Achilles Heel struck again in Brazil

 

 

 

Antonelli could have done better

Having faced criticism for inconsistency in recent years, this codifying of the rules of F1 racing is the FIA’s attempt to make stewarding a more black and white affair, whilst defecting accusations of inconsistency.

So the penalty was correct, according to the new way of interpreting F1 racing, yet Kimi Antonelli did contribute to the situation and in days of old the matter might have been deemed a racing incident.

The Mercedes driver had a lot of space on the outside between himself and Charles Leclerc, but he chose to defend against Piastri by tightening his line towards the apex the corner. It was unnecessary but Antonelli was in the most difficult position of the three drivers.

As to whether Piastri the stewards decided his lock up meant he wasn’t in control but racing drivers Karun Chandhok and Jamie Chadwick argued after the event that drivers lock up all the time, but they are not out of control.

F1’s 2026 rules predicted to create “overtaking-fest”

 

 

 

No room for interpretation

Further, had Kimi taken a wider line, the lock up would not have occurred. It was a result of Piastri adjusting his braking due to Antonelli’s line into the corner.

It was all an old fashioned racing incident and would have been treated as such if not for the FIA driving standards guidelines. To codify the rules of engagement in motor racing is a difficult task, given each situation has an element of uniqueness to it.

The element of interpretation has largely been removed by the stewards guidelines, although with often just one ex-competitive driver on the panel its easy to understand why they need coaching. Merely calling for the FIA guidelines to be dropped or revised won’t solve the problem when given the current personnel are acting a ‘trial by numbers’ review to arrive at a decision

F1’s 2026 rules predicted to create “overtaking-fest”

 

 

 

Antonelli had nothing to lose

Racing at the highest level requires mutual respect from the drivers and on the whole that is the case in F1 – even when George Russell and Max Verstappen find themselves on the same piece of asphalt. The more experienced drivers understand the unwritten code, yet it takes time for rookies to understand the importance of the code whilst they fight for their very existence in the sport.

Kimi had the right to defend the corner and arguably had a lot less to lose than Piastri, who should maybe have been more circumspect. Antonelli, whilst impressive, is also a rookie – something the Australian should possibly have understood.

In the end Piastri did gain a huge advantage by emerging in second place and he ruined a promising afternoon for Charles Leclerc.

FIA emergency action over Qatar

 

 

 

Professional stewards is the solution

Intent is hard to judge for any kind of referee and sporting codes generally steer clear of forcing there adjudicator to make this judgement call. Yet there was no lack of respect or any intent from any of the three drivers, however by gaining a significant advantage Piastri needed to be penalised.

Much of the responsibility for codifying F1’s racing rules lies with the drivers and their teams. Whenever a decision is made in recent years they want ‘clarification’ for the reasons and cry blue murder if they feel in a similar situation a different driver received different treatment.

The solution for a multi-billion dollars a year sport is to recruit full time professional stewards, with top level ex-racing drivers forming a significant part of the panel. Give them agreed looser guidelines, but allow them to use their professional experience in making the judgement call.

The judgement call should have been a penalty for Piastri because of the carnage he caused and because he gained a significant advantage. Had the incident not wiped out Charles Leclerc or Kimi Antonelli then maybe it was a racing incident. Yet professional stewards are unlikely any time soon, given the comments by FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem earlier this season, when he acceded to the idea of improving the professionalism of race control but demanded “who is going to pay for it?”

 

 

 

Hamilton at war with FIA stewards

For a second Formula One race weekend in a row, Lewis has blasted the FIA race stewards as a joke. In Mexico he duelled with Max Verstappen in the early laps, but left the track, failed to follow the race director’s instructions and rejoined several seconds further down the road.

Further, he so compromised Verstapen that he lost a place to Oliver Bearman which compromised his about a third of the world champion’s race. Hamilton was given a lenient five second penalty – the tariff could have been ten – yet even arriving in Brazil, Lewis remained furious with the stewards in Mexico.

Lewis labelled the decision “bullshit” during the race, but even after having time to review the TV coverage he continued to lambast the FIA officials….. READ MORE