The FIA has not had its finest two weeks as the governing body of Formula One. In Malaysia it failed to anticipate the slow speeds of the drivers behind the safety car which led to some dropping into low power mode which stopped the cars on track.
The sight of the safety car coming into the pits in the middle of a gaggle of F1 cars was truly astounding. With cars having completed a different number of formation laps behind the safety car, the FIA decided not to reshuffle the pack accordingly.
Further, they were in breach of their own regulations which stated the restart should be in the order the cars came into the pit lane behind the safety car. Instead they chose to reinstate the grid from qualifying, a move criticised heavily by a number of the drivers.
Driver Frustrations and Alonso’s Critiques
Fernando Alonso observed: ”I think I had 50% DNF this year. They never stopped the race for us.” When asked if the FIA acted unfairly, Alonso was adamant: “100%. I mean, this is motor racing…if it’s a safety concern, I get it. If there are five cars in the middle of the road or whatever, we have to stop the race and we need to see what’s going on.
“But I think they were out of the race. They were out, even on the [start/finish pit] wall. They had to push it two metres, the marshals, and retire the car – like we do in 50% of the races.”
Sprint Qualifying Chaos and Overtake Mode Errors
Come Sprint qualifying, Sergio Pérez destroyed his front wing causing race control to deploy the red flag for a cleanup operation. When the session resumed, the ‘overtake mode’ offering the drivers extra electrical boost was intermittently switched on and off meaning a number of drivers were disadvantaged depending on the timing of their run plans.
Carlos Sainz complained over the lack of fairness again from race control: “For whatever reason, the FIA, like in Malaysia, didn’t decide to do sporting equity and were happy to do half of the cars in quali with a higher power than the other half of the cars. I’m a bit confused why the sport keeps doing different things depending on who is out in Q1 or who is out in lap one,” said the Williams driver.
Human Error and the Hülkenberg-Sainz Incident
Come Grand Prix qualifying the FIA had admitted human error was to blame for the intermittent ‘overtake mode,’ meaning someone in race control was pressing a button when they should not. But this was not the end of the FIA mistakes as was later discovered in the stewards’ office.
In Q1, Nico Hülkenberg and Carlos Sainz were battling to make it into the next session. The German was on a slow down lap as Sainz came up behind him on a flying lap. The slow moving Audi was on the racing line forcing Sainz to abandon his final push lap in the session.
Video replays appeared to show it was a slam dunk penalty coming the way of Hülkenberg, yet in the stewards’ office another bizarre sequence of events was revealed. The Audi driver had already admitted to assembled media, “I didn’t get told, I thought he was on a cool lap or whatever, I don’t know. I didn’t have a call. Yeah, doesn’t sound great, unfortunately.”
The Stewards’ Official Verdict
Yet later in the stewards’ office, Hülkenberg avoided a penalty due to “extraordinary mitigating circumstances,” cited by the stewards. The full FIA verdict read as follows:
“The Stewards heard from the driver of Car 27 (Nico Hülkenberg), the driver of Car 55 (Carlos Sainz), team representatives and reviewed positioning/marshalling system data, video, team radio, timing and in-car video evidence.
“Video showed that Car 27 was driving slowly on the racing line on the approach to Turn 5. Car 55 arrived from behind on a push lap and had to abandon the lap. That Car 55 was thereby impeded was not in dispute. The issue was whether Car 55 had been ‘unnecessarily’ impeded.
“The team stated in the hearing that they believed, based on timing information to which they subscribed, sourced from the official timekeeping provider, that Car 55 had already taken the chequered flag and conveyed that information to the driver by radio.
“Therefore the driver of Car 27 did not expect Car 55 to still be on a push lap when it was closing in. The stewards acknowledge the fact that the data referenced by the team led the team to reasonably believe that Car 55 had received the chequered flag. Indeed, it was evident from Car 55’s radio messages that its team had formed the same belief relying on the same data.
“The misunderstanding was revealed to be attributable to the information initially received by the teams not being fully synchronised and only being displayed in a correct manner after a short period of time. However, that post-processing did not occur until Car 55 arrived behind Car 27, depriving the team of any reasonable opportunity to correct the information conveyed to the driver.
“In the stewards’ assessment, because the source of the data upon which the team relied was the official timing provider, it was not unreasonable for the team to have relied upon it, even though the team also had available to it the official timing data which conflicted.
“On the objective facts, the stewards determined that Car 55 was unnecessarily impeded. However, there were extraordinary mitigating circumstances in this case because the incident was attributable to the team’s reliance on information that was, for a brief period, inconsistent.”
For the upcoming Singapore Grand Prix today, we’ll have to see if the beleaguered FIA can run a clean session without any more timing glitches.
Would you like to see more TJ13 Formula 1 coverage? Add us to your favourites list on Google to receive trusted F1 news.
A.J. Hunt is Senior Editor at TJ13, where Andrew oversees editorial standards and contributes to the site’s Formula 1 coverage. A career journalist with experience in both print and digital sports media, Andrew trained in investigative journalism and has written for a range of European sports outlets.
At TJ13, Andrew plays a central role in shaping the site’s output, working across breaking news, analysis, and long-form features. Andrew’s responsibilities include fact-checking, refining editorial structure, and ensuring consistency in reporting across a fast-moving news cycle.
Andrew’s work focuses particularly on the intersection of Formula 1 politics, regulation, and team strategy. Andrew closely follows developments involving the FIA, team leadership, and driver market dynamics, helping to provide context behind the sport’s biggest stories.
With experience covering multiple seasons of Formula 1’s modern hybrid era, Andrew has developed a detailed understanding of how regulatory changes and competitive shifts influence the grid. Andrew’s editorial approach prioritises clarity and context, aiming to help readers navigate complex developments within the sport.
In addition to editorial duties, Andrew is particularly interested in how media narratives shape fan perception of Formula 1, and how reporting can balance speed with accuracy in an increasingly digital news environment.
