Why the FIA has suddenly gone public with F1 stewards' guidelines and racing rules

New York Times

6 hours ago

SPIELBERG, Austria — One of the big Formula One buzzwords from the last 18 months has been 'transparency.'
For a sport that spends so much of its time hiding amongst smoke and mirrors, with the politicking taking place behind closed doors, a desire for secrecy naturally pervades. But recent events, both on and off the track, led to that being challenged.
Advertisement
An on-track issue in the spotlight at the end of 2024 surrounded F1's 'racing rules,' which dictate what drivers can and cannot do when engaging in wheel-to-wheel battles.
Incidents between Max Verstappen and Lando Norris in both Austin and Mexico City prompted a review of the racing guidelines given to drivers. These determine who has the right to space in a corner when attacking and defending, depending on car placement and control level.
On Thursday, ahead of the Austrian Grand Prix, motorsport's governing body, the FIA, suddenly went public with not only the full racing guidelines but also the numerous guidelines F1 stewards must use when adjudicating incidents. This is particularly relevant after Verstappen moved to within one point of a race ban after colliding with George Russell at the Spanish Grand Prix earlier this month.
The FIA stated in its announcement that the guidelines' release was part of President Mohammed Ben Sulayem's 'drive to make the operations of the FIA more transparent.'
Unquestionably, it removes a degree of uncertainty or confusion hanging over stewarding decisions, as well as making clear to more than just the drivers and their teams what is permitted in wheel-to-wheel combat.
Yet it also raises questions for both competitors and F1 fans, particularly regarding the motivation behind revealing the guidelines right now.
The FIA published the stewards' penalty points framework and racing rules guidelines in two documents on its website on Thursday, with the first document being much longer and comprehensive.
Approximately 100 infringements were detailed on a table covering 11 pages, which ranged from on-track racing moves to off-track driver conduct, as well as team-related breaches such as breaking curfew or not fitting the wheels soon enough before the start of the race.
Advertisement
Not every single incident has penalty points as a possible sanction. However, given the recent spotlight on this issue, with Verstappen just one point shy of a ban, it was timely to issue the full guidelines now.
There is even one detail in the full table from the FIA that does have direct relevance to what happened between Verstappen and Russell in Spain. Verstappen received three penalty points for the incident, which can now be confirmed for 'causing a collision with no immediate and obvious sporting consequence,' given Russell ended up finishing ahead of Verstappen on the road in Barcelona.
A post shared by FORMULA 1® (@f1)
The other caveat to the decision to only give Verstappen three penalty points was that the stewards could not state the collision was made 'with apparent deliberate or reckless intent.' In the FIA bulletin relating to the incident, the Barcelona stewards stated that the clash was 'undoubtedly caused' by Verstappen, but at no point did they say it was deliberate. Russell was the only figure post-race to suggest that the move 'felt deliberate.'
But had the stewards deemed the move was made 'with apparent deliberate or reckless intent,' the guidelines state they would have given Verstappen four penalty points. This would have pushed him up to 12 and landed him a race ban for the next race (the Canadian GP, won by Russell).
The penalty points topic remains unpopular with some drivers, especially as some of the sanctions can be triggered by making mere mistakes. An error such as crossing the pit entry or exit line by accident incurs one penalty point, for example.
'We are professional in what we do. We obviously push things to the limits,' said Alpine's Pierre Gasly. 'To have a race ban potentially, I was in that situation a couple of months ago, and I don't think I was a dangerous driver on track.
Advertisement
'Maybe there's another way of applying some sort of penalties without getting into the risk of having a driver missing a race.'
The other main bit of clarity relating to the penalty points guidelines — which, it must be noted, have no regulatory value and are just a framework for the stewards to work from — revolves around punishments for driver misconduct. This was a thorny subject in late 2024 and the early part of this year after a clampdown on driver expression from the FIA that was eventually rowed back.
However, it is now revealed that the guidelines specify that sanctions can only be imposed for certain offences, such as using abusive language or causing offence, in what are deemed to be 'controlled environments.' This includes an FIA press conference.
These are covered by monetary penalties, but sporting penalties can be applied for 'any misconduct involving the abuse of officials.' A driver can receive a three-place grid penalty or a five-second time penalty, while should a team member be in breach of this specific issue, these penalties can be applied to both of a team's cars.
The second document published by the FIA was the racing guidelines, which, until now, have only been made available to the drivers and teams. But many details were already more widely known, given it became such a big talking point in the wake of what happened with Verstappen last year against Norris in Austin and Mexico.
After the guidelines were updated for 2025 after discussions with the drivers at the 2024 Qatar GP, the topic again emerged early in the new season. Specifically, in Saudi Arabia, Verstappen was penalized for leaving the track and gaining an advantage to keep the race lead ahead of McLaren's Oscar Piastri at the start. This later resulted in a penalty.
Red Bull argued that Piastri was not fully alongside in his Jeddah Turn 1 move, but per the guidelines, because Piastri had his front axle 'at least alongside the mirror of the other car prior to and at the apex,' he was entitled to the corner. Verstappen was in the wrong to cut this and then stay ahead.
Advertisement
The guidelines also contain a note about gaining what is deemed to be a lasting advantage. 'If, while defending a position, a car leaves the track (or cuts a chicane) and re-joins in the same position, it will generally be considered by the stewards as having gained a lasting advantage and therefore, generally, the position should be given back, as prescribed in the rules,' reads the document. This meant Red Bull's argument that Verstappen did not need to give up the position fell on deaf ears.
There are also eight questions the stewards should be asking themselves when ruling on racing incidents, including whether a move was optimistic or late, if the type of corner contributed to the incident, and tire age.
Publishing these guidelines does not change anything for the drivers, as they have always had access to them. But it did leave several of them questioning their suitability and necessity in what continues to be a recurring theme.
'I don't like how we're racing at the moment,' said Williams' Alex Albon, who explained how a driver might aggressively release the brakes a bit earlier to satisfy the guidelines' requirement to get their front axle in front of a rival.
Albon felt he'd lost out to this rule in both Spain and Canada, meaning he maybe needs to make a change to 'play it more to the rule book and understand, as drivers, (how) we're exploiting these rules.'
While it continues to be discussed by the drivers in their regular briefings with the F1 race director, crafting rules that perfectly apply to every situation is a near-impossible task.
'There will always be some situations that are not exactly written in black and white,' said Ferrari's Charles Leclerc. 'Eventually, you need to make a decision, and it will be up to the stewards to do the right one. You've got to fully trust them.'
Advertisement
Leclerc's teammate, Lewis Hamilton, said the rules not fitting perfectly was part of the reason he was 'not driving to those guidelines, if I'm being honest. I'm just driving what I feel naturally.'
Verstappen — who has already made his distaste for questions about his current penalty points situation very clear — didn't want to be drawn on his thoughts about the racing rules. 'I'm not going to comment on that,' he said. 'I can't risk getting any penalty points (under the driver misconduct penalty guidelines).'
The decision to publish these guidelines now follows long-standing calls for transparency on these issues and regular media questions to the FIA, seeking explanations for decisions made by the stewards. At the most recent World Motor Sport Council meeting, which took place ahead of the Canadian Grand Prix, officials decided to go ahead with publishing the guidelines, again in the hope of improving transparency.
The FIA also hopes to release guidelines covering its other racing categories in the future. Although there will be minor differences from category to category, it hopes the racing rules can at least provide a framework so things are consistent enough they can be added to the International Sporting Code, which covers all of the FIA's championships.
Russell, who is also a director for the Grand Prix Drivers' Association, was quoted by the FIA in the press release that published the documents on Thursday. Speaking to reporters in Austria later on, he welcomed the move, saying it was 'positive that you have those papers to understand what they are working towards.'
With the penalty points guidelines, the FIA aims to reduce confusion and uncertainty over how incidents are sanctioned. Now that the framework is public, it would have been clear Verstappen was to receive an in-race time penalty for clashing with Russell in Spain prior to any decision being issued. The only remaining question was whether it would be accompanied by three or four penalty points, depending if such a move was deemed deliberate or not.
But the timing of this release, in the name of transparency in a year where Ben Sulayem faces re-election and he is seeking the support of the voting clubs around the world following an at-times turbulent first chapter of his tenure, has naturally raised questions.
Advertisement
Russell said there had been 'some small changes in the last couple of months positively' in dealing with Ben Sulayem, who has faced criticism for not listening to the drivers enough.
'Now we hope that continues if he continues in power. And, ultimately, this (positive change) is what we want,' he added. 'These last couple of weeks or months does seem to be a step in the right direction but that has to continue once and if he's re-elected.'
Carlos Sainz, whose father announced on Wednesday he would not be seeking to stand in the presidential election after giving a run serious consideration, said it was 'no secret' the F1 drivers felt there had been a 'bit of a lack of transparency, and a bit of a lack of understanding with the main governance of the FIA.'
He thought things could only get better going forward. 'Let's see if it improves,' he said. 'Maybe today's press release from the FIA is already a sign of the intentions of making everything a bit more clear.'
But Sainz wouldn't be drawn on whether it was a political move by Ben Sulayem to take this step now for the sake of his presidency.
'I don't want to reply to that…' he said. 'You put me on the spot there. So yeah, I prefer not to comment.'
(Top photo of Mohammed Ben Sulayem: GIUSEPPE CACACE / AFP / Getty Images)