How to solve Formula 1’s stewarding problems

Rules can be as clear as you like, but the interpretation and enforcement of them will always introduce an element of subjectivity.

That’s why the quality of officiating in Formula 1 regularly returns to the top of the agenda, rightly or – more often than not – wrongly.

Some commentators have connected Derek Warwick’s suspension from his stewarding role ahead of the Canadian Grand Prix with the painful wait of five and a half hours after the chequered flag before the result was effectively ratified. But this is to muddle correlation with causation.

Enrique Bernoldi joined the stewards’ panel via video link from the FIA’s remote operations centre in Geneva and the process is understood to have functioned well enough even if it was not ideal. The chief reason for the delay, beyond Red Bull not lodging its protests against George Russell straight away, was that the stewards had to examine not only the crash between the two McLaren drivers which precipitated the late-race safety car, but also several infringements during the full-course yellow which race control had already flagged.

So, two separate problems, one of which is more straightforward to fix than the other.

Warwick is a pillar of the motorsport community, a Le Mans winner and a grand prix driver of note, as well as a former president of the British Racing Drivers' Club. He was suspended from the stewarding panel in Canada at late notice because he had given an interview to a gambling website in which he commented on various matters of moment in F1, including the incident between Russell and Max Verstappen in the Spanish Grand Prix.

In January, former F1 driver Johnny Herbert was dropped from the stewarding roster entirely. The FIA statement on this matter noted his "duties as an FIA steward and that of a media pundit were incompatible".

There are four stewards at every grand prix and, since 2010, one of them has always been an ex-F1 driver. Jean Todt, the FIA president at the time, introduced this idea in response to competitors complaining that stewards’ verdicts lacked both consistency and a clear understanding of the mechanics of racing situations.

But the stewards – even those former drivers – are still volunteers who lend their expertise out of the goodness of their hearts. It is not a paid position. Their expenses are covered but, under the present regime, these are not lavish. Gone are the days of Max Mosley’s reign when senior FIA personnel could order wine from the bottom of the list.

From that perspective it’s understandable that an unpaid volunteer might accept payment for their time to give a PR interview. But such is the nature of the stewards’ role that the optics aren’t good – especially given the febrile political situation ahead of the Canadian GP, where Red Bull was acutely fearful of other drivers taking advantage of Verstappen’s penalty-points peril.

One solution, as mooted by F1’s drivers themselves, is to have full-time stewards who are paid for their work. Of course, this would not obviate some of the more deranged accusations of corruption and bias which emit from the bottom half of the internet – but it would broadly satisfy the competitors and stakeholders, which is what actually matters.

The cars lining up on the grid for practice starts

Photo by: Sam Bloxham / Motorsport Images

But the problem here is who would pay these salaries. FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem has often spoken about how one cannot order new officials as easily as one might buy a new TV from Amazon. As well as launching initiatives to combat online abuse of race officials, he instituted the FIA’s stewards and race director ‘pathway’ to provide career development.

However, when the subject of paying F1 stewards was raised last year, Ben Sulayem’s response was that the FIA couldn’t afford this and the drivers were welcome to pay the bills themselves. Also, whenever questions are raised about decisions during grands prix, the FIA’s default position is ‘no comment’ on the grounds that the stewards are "independent from the FIA".

Paid stewards are a clear answer to some of the issues raised in recent months, but the path towards this is blocked unless the stakeholders are prepared to compromise.

In terms of avoiding scenarios in which the race result remains in doubt for hours after the chequered flag, there are several solutions which are easier to implement. One would be to adopt more flexibility over the order in which incidents are processed.

It makes commercial, sporting and logical sense to prioritise incidents which have a bearing on the headline outcome of the race. Having results overturned, or even just held in limbo, for hours after the chequered flag isn’t a good look for F1.

In this case, drivers and team managers who have already been summoned to appear before the stewards at a specific time to explain themselves may chafe at having to wait, but they should suck it up in service of the greater good.

It might also be a good idea to re-evaluate the deposit cost of lodging a protest, currently €2000 – small change for an F1 team, even in a budget-capped environment.

The Red Bull protest was tendentious and optimistic at best, and an example of how cognitive biases can compound towards folly. The team viewed the incident behind the safety car through the optics of believing Russell was trying to goad Verstappen into committing a foolhardy act which would bring on a penalty.

Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing, George Russell, Mercedes

Photo by: James Sutton / Motorsport Images via Getty Images

It’s an example of how one should be cautious in evaluating the evidence of on-car cameras, since they can appear to provide inarguable proof of a preconceived point of view. In this case Mercedes could easily demonstrate via data that Russell was obeying the safety car delta and not braking or accelerating any more than the normal patterns of doing so during a course neutralisation.

It was the safety car which was accelerating and decelerating erratically – all there in the footage, of course, but still subject to confirmation bias.

Given all the brouhaha, then, it’s ironic that Tim Malyon, the FIA’s sporting director, made it clear that the supposed ‘brake test’ and failure to stay within 10 car lengths of the safety car wouldn’t have been referred to the stewards by race control – because they could see the data in real time which later backed up Mercedes’ case.

So here’s another idea to improve the process: stop wasting the stewards’ time.