Up Next
Five case studies were the primary focus of a key discussion between Formula 1 drivers and the FIA at the Qatar Grand Prix over how to evolve and enforce divisive racing guidelines in 2026.
The annual review meeting to discuss driving standards and penalty guidelines took place at the Lusail track on Thursday evening with 16 drivers joining FIA stewards and other officials.
Absent were Lewis Hamilton, Fernando Alonso, Lance Stroll and Nico Hulkenberg.
As expected, a key focus of the discussions were the guidelines introduced in 2022 and more formally adopted in the last couple of the seasons. This is the document that outlines what is and is not permitted in battle but also governs other topics like track limits, impeding and going off track and gaining a lasting advantage.
The F1-specific version has been scrutinised a lot and criticised at times by drivers, often because of the emphasis placed on where the two cars are positioned during an attempted overtake on the inside or outside of a corner and the emphasis this puts on reaching a specific part of the track first. However, there are often other points of contention, too.
The Thursday evening meeting was a chance for the drivers to give their feedback and discuss the matter in a more focused way, given this usually plays out in polemics when drivers react to incidents in front of TV cameras or in written media sessions.
According to the FIA, data from the past three seasons shows the guidelines have “contributed to greater consistency in stewarding decisions, supported by detailed analysis provided by teams”.
However, there is an acceptance that the guidelines in their current form do not take into account certain factors, and/or the way they are applied lead to penalties for things that should not be considered punishable offences.
As such, five case studies formed the basis of most of the debate. Here is what was discussed and what kind of change they could lead to.
Incident: Piastri on Antonelli, Interlagos
What happened: Oscar Piastri was penalised after attempting an overtake on the inside and colliding with Kimi Antonelli.
The guideline in question: Overtaking on the inside of a corner
Why it needs to change: The guidelines currently require a car overtaking on the inside to have its front axle at least alongside the mirror of the other car prior to and at the apex.
The car must also be driven in a fully controlled manner - and one of the factors encouraged to be considered in evaluating this is whether a lock-up has taken place.
Piastri was punished because he was not far enough alongside, had a small lock-up, and therefore even though Antonelli pinned him to the apex Antonelli was entitled to do that as he had the right to the corner.
Lando Norris is understood to have been quite outspoken on this issue in defence of his team-mate, who lost valuable points in his championship battle as a result of the penalty he received.
One element that was discussed is that the camber of the Interlagos track means lock-ups are likely, especially when on the inside line, but that does not mean a loss of control.
It is widely believed among drivers that Piastri should not have been penalised for this and that the driver steward should be more empowered to, with their experience, argue it as a mitigating factor.
Incident: Sainz–Bearman, Monza
What happened: Bearman was penalised for causing a collision as Sainz attempted an overtake on the outside.
The guideline in question: Overtaking on the outside of a corner
Why it needs to change: For overtaking on the outside, the car is entitled to be given room if it has its front axle ahead of the front axle of the other car at the apex, is driven in a controlled manner from entry, to apex, and to exit, and is able to make the corner within track limits.
In this case, Bearman tried to contest the position on the inside even though Sainz got far enough ahead to satisfy all elements of the guidelines. As Sainz had the right to the corner, he turned in with Bearman still at the apex, and the two made contact.
Though most drivers considered this a racing incident, Bearman was punished because the guidelines gave Sainz the right to the corner. Essentially, even though Sainz essentially initiated the contact, the guidelines mean Bearman should not have been there to hit.
This has inadvertently empowered drivers to do what they want if they have achieved the required position in the guidelines, and it is likely there will be discussion over how the guidance on chicanes and S-bends can be updated.
Incident: Sainz on Lawson, Zandvoort
What happened: Sainz was penalised after attempting an overtake on the outside.
The guideline in question: Overtaking on the outside of a corner
Why it needs to change: Sainz tried to draw alongside Lawson on the outside of Turn 1. He hit the left rear of the Racing Bulls car on the exit of the corner, which was prompted by Lawson correcting a small slide after he had looked in his mirror to check where Sainz was.
Sainz was given a 10-second penalty, and while this could not be rescinded when Williams won a right of review, there was at least no punishment in the form of licence penalty points.
It exposed a limitation in the guidelines in how they may be applied in long-radius corners, where it is difficult to define an apex. This was already essentially accepted by Williams’s successful right of review, so will either change in terms of specific guidance for corners with a hard-to-define apex or will come down to the stewards applying greater discretion.
Incident: Norris on Leclerc, Austin
What happened: Norris received a track limits strike for going off-track after a failed overtake.
The guideline in question: Leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage
Why it needs to change: After too much chopping and changing of how to police track limits and enforce the rules around them, the FIA’s approach became a lot more simpler and consistent: use the white lines everywhere.
It is now well established, and reiterated in the guidelines, that in races a “three strikes” system shall normally be applied before a driver gets a black-and-white flag or a penalty.
But there are exceptions, namely:
1. If a driver exceeds track limits following an obvious loss of control.
2. If a driver exceeds track limits in order to avoid a collision e.g. typical Lap 1, Turn 1 incident.
3. If a driver has been considered to be “forced off” by another car (in a decision of the stewards)
4. If a driver exceeds track limits and is penalised for gaining a lasting advantage or unsafe re-join.
5. If a driver exceeds track limits during an incident which is penalised for any other reason. E.g. if a driver exceeds track limits during an incident for which they are penalised for causing a collision.
Norris went off trying and failing to pass Leclerc, and was not deemed to be forced off. This counted as one of his strikes.
It is suggested that going off in battle like this should, in some way, be considered among the exceptions - or at least a provision for more leeway if a driver is in control of their car.
Especially if they are on their third strike or have been shown a black-and-white flag and therefore are vulnerable to the other driver strategically easing them off-track and earning them a penalty.
Incident: Leclerc on Verstappen, Mexico
What happened: Leclerc was not punished for cutting the track at the start.
The guideline in question: Track limits
What may change: The start of the Mexican Grand Prix, not for the first time, exposed how drivers will test or exceed the limits of the rules around going off the track and gaining a lasting advantage.
Max Verstappen went off after being forced onto the kerb on the outside of Turn 1 so skipped Turn 2, but then handed back the position he gained from Lewis Hamilton a couple of corners later.
Charles Leclerc, who had been wheel-to-wheel with Verstappen, also cut Turn 2 despite making it through Turn 1 itself, and jumped into the lead. He let Norris by, but then retained second place.
Several drivers felt in hindsight that Leclerc did not have a justifiable reason for cutting the track and should have at least been more thoroughly investigated, if not penalised – as it is felt prudent that lap one, Turn 1 incidents are not considered a free pass.
What else was discussed?
These were not the only topics of discussion in a meeting that ran for almost two hours.
In summary, the drivers expressed a desire for:
- A stronger emphasis on respect for yellow flags, and discussion of potential additional concepts to further enhance safety.
- A clear preference for hearings to be held after the race when stewards believe not all relevant elements may be available during live running.
- A shared view that guidelines cannot cover every scenario, underlining the importance of having an experienced driver steward on each panel.
- Blue flags, including potential additions to the guidelines to clarify expected behaviour from lapped cars.
Though it has not been specified what refinements will be made to the guidelines, this discussion will inform any that are made, with the Grand Prix Drivers Association and FIA Drivers’ Commission to be consulted further.
However, any alterations will be made for 2026, with nothing being changed for the final two races of 2025.
