SerpApi.Org
Drivers will meet with the FIA over the Hungarian Grand Prix weekend to discuss stewarding and driving standards with incidents involving Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton set to be discussed, PlanetF1.com can reveal.
The Ferrari drivers were both involved in incidents during the Belgian Grand Prix last weekend, with Leclerc escaping punishment after moving across on Oscar Piastri, while Hamilton was handed a time penalty for an opening lap clash with George Russell.
Charles Leclerc penalty escape creates difficult stewarding dilemma
Want more PlanetF1.com coverage? Add us as a preferred source on Google for news you can trust.
The two incidents highlighted a limitation of the stewarding in Formula 1, with the decisions, on the surface, inconsistent with the International Sporting Code and the Driving Standards Guidelines.
Both are expected to be addressed in Hungary in the latest in a series of ongoing discussions between drivers and the FIA, the last coming at the 2025 Qatar Grand Prix where it was agreed to increase the frequency of such meetings.
Already scheduled ahead of the Belgian GP incidents, the discussion will have a renewed focus after criticisms of the way incidents involving the two Ferrari drivers were handled in Spa.
Post-race, Piastri was left perplexed that Leclerc escaped without so much as a warning after the pair made contact while battling for third on Lap 8.
Having run wheel-to-wheel down the Kemmel Straight, and the Ferrari sitting mid track to force Piastri the long way round, Leclerc eased his way back towards the racing line as he looked to both defend and open up the entry into Les Combes.
In doing so, his left-rear wheel made contact with Piastri’s front-right, damaging the McLaren in the process.
Investigated by the stewards, it was deemed that no further action was necessary.
“Car 81 had some overlap on Car 16, but the front axle of Car 81 was not ahead of the front axle of Car 16 and there was no possibility of Car 81 completing an overtake from that position,” the stewards’ summary said.
“In the Stewards’ determination, Car 16 did not deliberately crowd Car 81 off the edge of the track.
“In the circumstances, the Stewards determined to take no further action.”
Post race, Piastri highlighted the fact that he was on the white line on the left-hand side of the circuit when he and Leclerc brushed wheels, with the Australian admitting: “I don’t really know where I was supposed to go.”
What the regulations say
Behaviour on track is governed by the FIA’s International Sporting Code (ISC), an overarching document that outlines many of the basics across all forms of motorsport. Wherever conflict or contradiction exists in the rules, it is the ISC which takes precedence.
It is upon this that the Formula 1 regulations stand, with definitions around how drivers can fairly, and safely, overtake and defend during competition.
Within the ISC, it states that “More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted.”
In this instance, it’s arguable whether Leclerc had moved once to defend, given he pulled into the mid-track exiting Raidillon as he entered the Kemmel Straight.
The ISC adds: “Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off-line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner.”
It can therefore be interpreted that, regardless of whether Leclerc moved off line to defend or not, he should have left racing room with any subsequent move back towards the racing line.
The Driving Standards Guidelines (DSG) reiterate that element of the ISC among a host of other information designed to help the stewards apply the regulations consistently.
It is important to note that, while the contents of the DSG have been worked out in collaboration with the drivers themselves and help inform the stewards, the document holds no regulatory value of its own.
More on Belgian GP penalties
Why FIA took no action against Leclerc despite Piastri’s ‘black-and-white flag’ call
Hamilton disagrees with FIA penalty as Russell backs Ferrari driver
The logical breakdown of the Charles Leclerc penalty decision
In this instance, however, there appears a disconnect between the incident, the rationale detailed in the stewards’ summary, and the wording of both the regulations and driving guidelines.
The fact there was contact is strong evidence that Leclerc failed to leave “at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track,” as mandated in the International Sporting Code.
However, in the stewards’ opinion, Piastri had no chance of overtaking and, because his front axle was not ahead of Leclerc’s, was not entitled to racing room.
While an agreed-upon principle within the Driving Standards Guidelines, that specific element pertains to overtaking on the outside of a corner, not on a straight or in a braking zone on approach.
Further, in claiming that Piastri had “no possibility” of completing the pass, stewards appeared inconsistent with the regulations, which do not define the context in which a car must be left “at least one car width” and state only that the gap must be there. In this instance, it was demonstrably absent.
The stewards appear to have applied guidance intended for positioning at the apex of a corner to an incident that occurred on the approach and under braking, rather than applying the International Sporting Code as written.
That there was contact suggests Leclerc deserved a penalty, though such a black-and-white stance is not always prudent and is exactly why stewards have discretion; some contact has to be tolerated else the risk of making a move would be too great and we’d instead witness processional racing.
Whether the Spa incident crossed that invisible threshold is up to the opinion of the stewards and, like in any sport, that can differ based on the individual(s) involved, their perception and interpretation. Natural variation is inevitable and perfection impossible.
The decision not to issue a penalty is not the issue. The concern is how that decision was reached as the rationale appears flawed.
It assumes Piastri was attempting to overtake around the outside rather than positioning his car to attack at a later point by wrong-footing Leclerc to set up a pass for the following corner or straight.
It transposes guidelines for overtaking in a corner onto an incident on a straight, while simultaneously failing to apply elements of the ISC that directly cover defensive moves on a straight.
The wording of the International Sporting Code is objective: the gap exists or it does not. In Belgium, the stewards applied a subjective measure on the incident: was Piastri’s attack likely to result in a pass at that corner?
In deciding not to issue a penalty, stewards noted that Charles Leclerc did not “deliberately crowd” Piastri in his defence, but regulations require drivers to leave a car’s width when returning to the racing line regardless of their intent.
Whether Leclerc meant to squeeze Piastri or simply misjudged the move into Les Combes, the actual outcome (a lack of space and contact) constitutes a breach of the regulations as they’re written in the International Sporting Code.
For his part, Leclerc was being aggressive but not intentionally dangerous in defending against Piastri; it was clearly a misjudgement as he looked right towards the coming apex rather than left to ensure he’d left a McLaren-sized gap.
Accepting that and imagining the incident was a 60-40 with Leclerc more in the wrong, it’s also plausible that the incident is investigated and there is no penalty. Had it been 70-30, perhaps the outcome might have been different.
Nonetheless, questions must be asked as to why stewards did not apply the regulations as written in the International Sporting Code, and the rationale employed in reaching their conclusion.
Lewis Hamilton penalty adds to the confusion
Similarly, the penalty handed out to Lewis Hamilton was deemed harsh when he was handed a five-second time penalty for an opening lap tangle with George Russell.
The Mercedes driver was battling a battery issue and fell into the pack as it raced up the Kemmel Straight, Hamilton looking to slide up the inside at the right-hander at Les Combes.
“I think it was a racing incident, so obviously I didn’t think it should have been a penalty, but it is what it is,” Hamilton said of the clash which saw his front-left wheel make contact with Russell’s Mercedes.
It was enough to pitch the Brit into a spin and out of the race with most observers sharing Hamilton’s opinion that it was a racing incident.
The seven-time world champion had not crowded Russell for room, nor was he squeezing him or had he lost control; it was a touch of wheels at a moment when the field was condensed at the start of the race.
Stewards however felt differently, stating that the understeer Hamilton experienced should have been accounted for and greater room afforded to his former teammate.
“During the corner, Car 44 experienced understeer and, despite attempting to avoid Car 63 by applying corrective steering, made contact with the right-hand side of Car 63 with its left-front wheel,” the stewards’ summary noted.
“The Stewards determined that Car 63 remained within the available racing room and that the collision was caused by Car 44 being unable to maintain sufficient separation.”
They went on to acknowledge the role Max Verstappen’s Red Bull played in reducing the effectiveness of Hamilton’s front wing, making it impossible for him to avoid contact despite steering hard-right and being close to the inside edge of the circuit.
Curiously, by the wording of the DSG, Hamilton as the overtaking car was entitled to racing room as his front wheel was alongside Russell’s mirror.
And yet Hamilton was penalised for his part in the clash despite doing all he could to avoid contact, with stewards pinning 100 percent of the fault on his shoulders.
In reality, the incident is far closer to a 50-50, perhaps at very worst a 60-40 skewed towards Hamilton, which is where the concerns are raised.
Deeming that “Car 44 was wholly at fault for the collision” is a perplexing stance, one that is arguably contradicted by the stewards’ own summary in which they stated that “The collision resulted from a loss of front-end grip rather than from an aggressive or deliberate manoeuvre.”
There must be some fault on the side of Russell, as he sat mid track, leaving ample room to move away from the Ferrari and avoid contact rather than pinching Hamilton to the apex.
It’s been suggested that the incident in reality was more a 60-40, on par with the Leclerc incident, in which case it did not warrant a penalty.
Clarification must be made
The outcome of the two incidents is somewhat academic, with the more important issue understanding and clarifying how the ISC and DSG interact and are interpreted by the stewards given the specificities of each.
While there is overlap between the two documents, there is also wiggle room and discretion for officials in their application, and that appears to have been enough to open the door to confusion and contradiction.
The Belgian GP incidents will no doubt be logged into the FIA system, potentially with an asterisk alongside it – not because the wrong decision was necessarily made, but because the logic and conclusion to make those calls were questionable.
It is fortuitous that the mid-season meeting between drivers and officials will afford a platform to discuss these examples in the coming days, with improved clarity and consistency as the desired outcomes.
Want to be the first to know exclusive information from the F1 paddock? Join our broadcast channel on WhatsApp to get the scoop on the latest developments from our team of accredited journalists.
You can also subscribe to the PlanetF1 YouTube channel for exclusive features, hear from our paddock journalists with stories from the heart of Formula 1 and much more!
Read Next: Martin Brundle: ‘Get rid of this concept as soon as possible’
