The FIA‘s Single-Seater Director Nikolas Tombazis has said Formula 1‘s upcoming regulation changes are not designed to “overburden” drivers.

2026 will see some of the most radical technical regulation changes in F1’s history, and the topic has already drawn contrasting opinions across the board.

Further electrification and aerodynamic changes will see a contrast from current machines, leading to a change in how drivers will tackle the cars.

Regardless of personal opinion, F1 drivers have indicated that there will be a significant challenge from the new cars, with further onus on their skill than the car.

Williams’ Alex Albon has discussed the complexities of the 2026 cars, and said that the most intelligent drivers will be able to “abuse the system”.

His Team Principal James Vowles has also been vocal in his assertion that drivers are going to experience a “very difficult” workload behind the wheel.

Tombazis, in an interview with Autosport, appeared to attempt to quell any potential worry from the drivers, a reiteration of previous comments the Greek has given.

“But firstly, Albon and other drivers haven’t driven the final rules yet, by definition, because they’re not done yet,” he said.

“Secondly, for sure if you don’t automate certain parts, there will be an increased burden on the drivers. That is true.”

Tombazis added that this is an area of the regulations that the sport’s governing body is currently still trying to determine with definition.

“Part of the work that still needs to be done between now and the start of next season is to determine how much of that stuff will be in the background, let’s say more automatic, versus how much the driver will have to control.”

Tombazis keen to avoid an unnecessary F1 ‘chess game’

One of F1’s big changes is the removal of DRS, to be replaced by a system that resembles IndyCar’s ‘push to pass’ button.

The additional removal of some of the intricacies that aids the drivers is seen, from Tombazis’ perspective at least, a return to drivers having more “control” than before.

“We don’t want to overburden the driver with something,” he said. “But at the same time there has to be a degree of freedom, to make sure that he can attack, defend and have some of that stuff under his control.

“But there will for sure be some part of it which will be managed transparently to him, so he doesn’t have to think about it when cornering or something like that.”

Another huge aspect of the 2026 cars will be the constant energy conservation that will have to be at the forefront of the drivers’ minds all of the time.

Tombazis was keen to stress that he would like to see a somewhat happy medium between it playing a key part of a driver’s race, but not that it takes away the organic nature of the racing itself.

“I think there’s a balance to strike between driving like a chess game of energy management, which we don’t want as one extreme, and then the other extreme where driving is just a steering wheel, a throttle pedal and a brake pedal,” he said, adding: “We need to find a good way in the middle.”

On the topic of Albon’s previous statement of abusing the system, Tombazis believes that current F1 is already placed in such a way that drivers with the most intelligence will rise to the top.

“But I think smart drivers already prevail,” he said. “The difference in performance that we see nowadays in F1 includes a percentage of that,” he added, citing his times spent as an aerodynamicist with Michael Schumacher at both Benetton and Ferrari.

“And that’s not only now, the mental bandwidth of drivers has been a factor for the last 20 years already – also in the younger days of my career, when I was working with Schumacher for example.

“I mean, obviously he was phenomenally talented, but a big part of what set him apart was that he could also think of all these other things during a race.

“You know that amongst the current drivers there are some who seem to have a bit extra to think about other things as well, while some others have to use all their CPU to drive the car.”

F1 drivers will need ‘understanding of the parameters’ of 2026 cars

Tombazis is trusting of the drivers’ mental capacity to deal with the challenges ahead, stating they “have quite a high bandwidth of intellect.

“They can deal with certain problems.”

Tombazis concluded that whilst there will be a new level of skills they will need to hone and develop, the 2026 cars will still show the wheat from the chaff by little more than the basic requirements of an F1 driver.

“There’s a level of understanding they need to have of these parameters,” he said.

“We think that’s part of what a top driver has to do. It’s not, however, and we will make sure it isn’t, the main skill.

“The main skill is still to be able to brake at the right point, to go fast around the corner, to find the limit, select the right lines, etc.

“That will still be the main parameter that controls who’s good and who’s bad. I wouldn’t be able to drive the car!”

READ MORE – How Aston Martin is preparing for the challenge of F1 2026

The post FIA keen to avoid ‘overburdening’ F1 drivers with 2026 regulations appeared first on Motorsport Week.

The FIA has issued a strong rebuttal to recent claims made by GPDA chairman and former Formula 1 driver Alex Wurz regarding alleged aerodynamic modifications in karting.

The Austrian alleged that all “20 F1 drivers” had united to call for immediate action, as he branded the supposed developments in karting “absolutely insane” and “dangerous”.

His comments derived from an exclusive interview with GPBlog, during the Belgium Grand Prix weekend at Spa back in July, where he launched an attack on the way karting events are governed by the FIA and how the governing body has supposedly “allowed aerodynamic parts on the karts”.

In response, after the story’s publication, the FIA issued a statement firmly rejecting Wurz’s assertions and the claims reported in the article.

“The FIA strongly refutes a number of assertions made in comments carried in a recent article published by GPBlog.com,” the official statement read.

“These statements are incorrect and misrepresent the CIK-FIA Karting Technical and Homologation Regulations which govern FIA-sanctioned Karting events and explicitly prohibit modifications to the aerodynamics, wings, or floors of karts.

“To clarify: Article 4.6 of the Karting Technical Regulations, updated by the World Motor Sport Council in February 2025, specifically prohibits alterations to the floor trays of karts. The technical regulations also stipulate that only components expressly approved by the FIA may be used, thereby preventing the use of untested or non-homologated parts.

“All homologated bodywork must undergo FIA-standard crash testing, ensuring safety and integrity. There are currently five manufacturers who have homologated bodywork parts with a numbering system in place to ensure and track regulatory compliance.

“Under Article 22 of the Homologation Regulations, bodywork must be air-blow moulded, which inherently prevents adjustable aerodynamic features.

“Additionally, Article 3.2 of the Technical Regulations prohibits any modifications to homologated bodywork as inferred was possible or taking place in the article.”

FIA reaffirms karting regulations and safety standards

Continuing in its response, the FIA underlined that karting regulations leave no room for ambiguity, stressing that all components (aerodynamic or otherwise) are tightly controlled and their compliance rigorously enforced.

“The FIA welcomes the opportunity to clarify these points and reiterate the strict regulatory framework in place which ensures consistency, safety, cost containment and fairness in karting,” the statement added.

“The claims made in the article regarding alterations are not permitted in FIA-sanctioned Karting events and it is important to note that all components, including bodywork, are tightly controlled through homologation and scrutineering procedures that prevent any unapproved modifications.”

The FIA also responded directly to Wurz’s comment that, “We are looking out for the kids in karting, and we are concerned. We think it’s in the wrong direction and it should be stopped”.

The governing body slammed Wurz for his choice of words surrounding the basic safety of the junior competitors, saying: “Safety will always be the key priority of the FIA. Suggestions that safety has been compromised to accommodate kart upgrades are entirely baseless and untrue.

“In fact, the technical regulations have been strengthened this year to further enhance safety standards. The FIA has in recent years developed several new safety standards for karting, such as the karting body protection, karting light panels and karting helmet standards. 

“The FIA continues to strengthen safety standards in karting and will shortly release a completely new safety device initiative for karting.

“The FIA remains deeply committed to making karting more accessible and inclusive. Through our Global Karting Plan, we are introducing new categories and competitions such as the FIA Karting Arrive and Drive World Cup in November where standardised karts will ensure technical and financial parity in a competition that identifies and rewards racing talent.”

Why the wait and why now?

This matter is not over in the eyes of the FIA and in the coming days they will actively seek a retraction of the spurious claims allegedly made by Wurz if not the whole article. 

Just how (and when) the GPDA and all of their “20 F1 drivers” have allegedly and suddenly become involved in campaigning for this, as heretofore unknown, alleged breach of safety for junior competitors is not known. 

But recently, the current political climate that has been invading the sport when anything related to the FIA is mentioned is concerning. Just why the GPDA Chairman would choose a little-known Dutch website to expose these alleged safety concerns of all “20 F1 drivers” is also concerning.

And, as to why that website would wait nearly a month before publishing their ‘scoop’ is debatable but clearly there is an agenda in play and one that is currently not obvious. 

Given the period of time that passed between the alleged exclusive interview and publication, could they not have engaged the FIA directly for a statement, especially as the author of the article was seen speaking to FIA officials in Budapest the following week and did not even bring up the matter.

For that matter why the GPDA did not immediately engage directly with the FIA when this matter became an issue for all “20 F1 drivers” (if indeed it is), is also a question that needs to be answered by Alex Wurz.

Looking in from the outside, there are more questions than answers at this stage with it being as clear as mud as to who or what is driving this agenda… 

READ MORE – Why the FIA isn’t worried about lap times with the 2026 F1 regulation overhaul

The post FIA releases statement in response to ‘baseless and untrue’ allegations made by GPDA chairman appeared first on Motorsport Week.

The FIA has moved to calm fears over the performance of Formula 1’s 2026 cars, insisting that initial lap-time differences will not define the season.

Amid widespread debate and criticism from drivers, the governing body says teams and drivers will quickly adapt, and any slow start will be temporary as the cars evolve.

The upcoming 2026 regulations have sparked significant discussion within the paddock, with several drivers expressing concerns over the new car designs.

Ferrari’s Charles Leclerc, for instance, has voiced apprehension about the new cars being “less enjoyable” to drive, noting that they are “not the most enjoyable race car I’ve driven” during simulator tests.

McLaren’s Oscar Piastri has also highlighted challenges, suggesting that some aspects of the new regulations might not add to the competition or spectacle.

Other concerns include claims that 2026 could become an “energy management championship” and worries over lap times. With less downforce, the new cars will be quicker on straights but notably slower through corners.

Despite these concerns, the FIA maintains that the initial performance differences will not be a significant issue. Single-seater director Nikolas Tombazis emphasised that while simulations indicate the new cars will be slower initially, this is not expected to be a long-term concern.

“First of all, I do get a bit surprised by how much emphasis is put on the actual lap times,” he told Autosport. “We’ve had various phases of the sport when cars have been slower or faster, and I think once you are used to it, it’s okay.

“If you walk out of a simulator or in real life go from one car to another car that is one second and a half slower, you initially think ‘this is not a good car’, because you feel that second and a half.

“But I think once you’ve driven that a bit, then it actually doesn’t matter.

FIA downplays lap time worries for 2026

Tombazis sought to calm concerns over lap times, stressing that initial differences will settle once drivers adapt to the new cars.

“I really don’t think the lap times are going to be a factor once people get used to these cars,” he added. “I think it’s a comment you make initially when you see the delta, but I don’t think it will be a factor frankly, nor will it be hugely different from now.

“In our simulations, the new cars will be between one and two-and-a-half seconds slower at the start of the regulations, and clearly there will be evolution that will make them gain speed.”

However, he acknowledged that, with limited data from teams, the FIA’s lap time predictions might not be entirely accurate.

“In fairness, we don’t have data from all the teams; we don’t know the exact levels of downforce from all the teams,” he explained.

“Potentially, some teams that don’t get it right initially may be a bit slower than our simulations, but we don’t expect lap times to be a talking point.”

The new overtaking system under next year’s regulations

Another major change for 2026 concerns overtaking, with the traditional DRS system being replaced. Drivers will have access to two main aerodynamic modes: X-mode, which reduces drag for higher straight-line speed, and Z-mode, which increases downforce for better cornering.

These modes are designed to be adjusted dynamically during a race, allowing drivers to optimise performance depending on track sections.

On top of this, a ‘Manual Override’ boost — similar in concept to IndyCar’s ‘push-to-pass’ — will give drivers an additional temporary power advantage.

Unlike the X and Z modes, this is intended specifically to aid overtaking, adding a tactical element that can be fine-tuned by the FIA and teams for each circuit.

“This is one of the things we are doing now, when drivers are testing these cars in the simulator,” Tombazis said when asked how powerful the boost will be. “It has got similarities with DRS but also differences depending on the tracks.

“What we are generally working on with the teams and the simulations is to make sure that the extra boost you get keeps overtaking always on the difficult side.

“Difficult but feasible, rather than too easy, where you just drive past somebody on the straights, or too difficult, where you don’t manage to get close enough at the braking point.

“The finetuning that is taking place at the moment is to ensure that this override boost gives you just about the right amount to be able to get to that point. It won’t be the same for each circuit, but that is exactly the work that is taking place at the moment.”

READ MORE – The FIA reveals how it intends to avoid ‘unnatural things’ by tweaking 2026 F1 rules

The post Why the FIA isn’t worried about lap times with the 2026 F1 regulation overhaul appeared first on Motorsport Week.

Ex-Formula 1 team Caterham could return to the grid in 2027, backed by 24-year-old Kuwaiti entrepreneur Saad Kassis-Mohamed and his investment firm, SKM Capital.

Caterham competed in the sport from 2012 to 2014 after taking over the Lotus Racing entry, but the team struggled at the back and never scored championship points.

Known more for its ambition than results, it folded after financial difficulties, leaving a familiar brand name but little legacy on track.

The prospective project, which aims to restore the Caterham moniker, will operate as SKM Racing for the time being and has already established a technical centre in Silverstone, where it will produce parts and use test benches. Meanwhile, its racing department will be based in Munich, though further details have not been disclosed at this stage.

SKM Racing has filled a handful of key positions, including Elena Richter (Managing Director), Marco Bianchi (technology), Aisha Khan (performance), and Tobias Meier (finance). The first three bring prior F1 or motorsport experience to the team.

Kassis-Mohamed, named last year on Forbes’ ‘30 Under 30’ list in the Social Influence category, has earmarked €280 million for the venture.

“Formula 1 is a disciplined engineering competition with a predictable cost framework,” said Marcine Graham, Managing Partner of SKM Capital, in a press release announcing the project.

“This combination makes it attractive for investment. We are building a compact, data-driven organisation that is sustainable and competitive from the outset.”

He plans to expand the operation from an initial 210–230 employees at launch to around 320 by its third year, recruiting talent through partnerships with UK and German universities.

“We will not recruit more people than is really necessary until our foundation is ready,” explains Richter.

Plans underway for Caterham return in 2027

Discussions are also underway with two of F1’s current engine suppliers for a multi-year deal and technical cooperation.

SKM does not want to produce all parts itself: “We save time by making smart decisions about what we produce ourselves and what we outsource.”

While the team has not confirmed which supplier it will partner with, options are likely to be limited to Ferrari or Honda, as Mercedes will already supply the maximum of four customer teams in 2027, and Red Bull Ford Powertrains only supply Red Bull and its sister team, Racing Bulls.

Audi will supply itself, whilst Cadillac, after initially using Ferrari engines for its 2026 F1 debut, is expected to become a full power unit manufacturer later in the decade.

The team has set an ambitious schedule, aiming to submit complete registration documents to the FIA at the start of 2026, by which time the Silverstone factory must also be fully equipped.

The first chassis is expected by the third quarter of 2026, after which system checks on the test benches can begin.

The only remaining requirement for a planned F1 debut in 2027 is approval from the FIA and Formula One Management, a challenge that has previously caused delays for projects such as Andretti and Cadillac.

SKM is considering the Caterham name partly because its prior F1 history could make it easier to secure approval to enter the sport.

“Caterham is still a familiar name to many, but they are not currently participating in F1,” Kassis-Mohamed told Sportstar Magazine.

“A brand licence makes it easier to enter the marketing world without having to revive the old company and its debts.”

READ MORE – Otmar Szafnauer piecing together bid to bring 12th team into F1

The post Kuwaiti investor aiming for 2027 F1 entry with Caterham name appeared first on Motorsport Week.

The FIA has revealed how work on next year’s new set of Formula 1 regulations is still being implemented, in order to avoid “unnatural things” on track.

2026 sees the introduction of a new era of F1, and with that, a new and unique challenge for the teams to develop their cars, and for the drivers inside.

The rules have been met with some trepidation already, with some drivers commenting on the differences they will face compared to this year’s challengers.

One of the significant differences is the equilibrium between internal combustion and electric power, which provides an additional conservation process for drivers.

This will enable teams to flex their nous on how well they have enhanced this area of the cars, according to the FIA’s Single-Seater Director Nikolas Tombazis.

“Obviously when you have a much bigger proportion of electrical power and a smaller proportion of ICE power, and you don’t have batteries that are discharging over the entire race distance, then energy management becomes a bit more of a challenge,” he told Autosport.

“Now the opportunity of these new cars for the participating manufacturers is to develop the batteries, the electrical systems, and so on.

“I think we will see some innovation on the electrical side of the engine next year, which I think will be good.

“But clearly there are some challenges with the energy management, and the noises that we hear are usually related to that.”

Drivers have already been vocal about some scepticism on how they will enjoy the cars, including Charles Leclerc, who said he was “not a fan” after an initial simulator run.

But Tombazis tried to quell the initial negativity, revealing the rules are still not yet honed and fine tuned.

“We haven’t finished the rules yet in that respect,” he added. “The rules are evolving and we knew of these issues from day one.

“The moment you reduce one power, and you increase the other one, we knew that there were issues to address.”

Tombazis explained there will be an “evolution” in how things lies between now and when cars first take to the track in anger in pre-season testing.

Despite having to consult the power unit manufacturers on these tweaks, he indicated that their usual ease of working with them should not cause too many issues.

“We have to go through an approval process with the PU manufacturers, so we can’t just unilaterally make a change tomorrow,” said Tombazis.

“But by and large, when we address specific problems, teams and PU manufacturers tend to be relatively helpful.

“I think what we have now and what we’ll have at the beginning of next year is not exactly the same thing.

“I’m not saying it will be completely different, but there will definitely be a lot of evolution between now and the start.”

Tombazis did admit that it “isn’t always easy to get everyone to agree, adding: “When teams and manufacturers discuss these matters, they think of a combination of the good of the sport and their own competitive position.

“Of course, one bit influences the other, so unavoidably, there will be different opinions.

“At the moment, the technical specification of the engines, the electrical part, and all of that is set in stone. That’s not changing.”

FIA will ensure ‘provisions’ will ensure no ‘funny things’ will happen on track

Tombazis explained that there is still a lot of experimentation going on behind the scenes at the FIA when it comes to the area of energy recovery in the cars.

“I think there’s a general feeling that all of these topics will have very strong levers on which to react,” he theorised.

“Those things have to do with the maximum power, how quickly it will reduce on the straights, the energy that you can recover, etc.

“There are all sorts of levers that we can play on, and that we are playing on.”

A concern is how drivers may have to perform lift and coast on straights during races, but Tombazis further revealed how work is being done to ensure this is will not happen.

“There will be quite a lot of new provisions in order to manage the energy better and to make sure that cars are not decelerating on the straights, doing funny things, or, let’s say, doing unnatural things,” he continued.

“What we don’t want, is a situation where they have to lift off, for example, on the straights or anything like that.

“We will absolutely, categorically, make sure that they don’t have to lift off in a particular area in order to do something with the energy or whatever.

“When they need to go faster, drivers will keep the pedal to the metal, as they say.”

F1 drivers ‘only get a snapshot’ of what is to come from 2026 cars

Tombazis divulged that some teams and PU manufacturers are more willing to reveal their respective data from initial tests with the FIA than others.

“Some are very secretive about what they’re doing, while some others are very open and very helpful in proposing things,” he revealed.

“We are taking a lot of those ideas on board.”

Tombazis further emphasised that some of the apprehension conveyed by drivers from their early sim runs may come from a lack of the full picture.

“I think it’s important to convey that, because some people, including the drivers testing in the simulator, don’t follow the evolution of our discussions with the teams in detail,” he said.

“Maybe they only get a snapshot. But the reason they’re driving the simulator is precisely to identify these problems, so we can solve them.

“If we didn’t have drivers in the simulator, we wouldn’t have all this feedback.

“We can do quite a lot with simulations ourselves, but you actually need a driver in a car and get a lot of feedback. That’s what is going on these months.”

READ MORE – Lando Norris warns F1 must avoid ‘fake’ or ‘scripted’ racing with 2026 regulations

The post The FIA reveals how it intends to avoid ‘unnatural things’ by tweaking 2026 F1 rules appeared first on Motorsport Week.

Williams boss James Vowles believes that next year’s new Formula 1 regulations will not see large performance gaps between teams, as seen in 2014.

2026 will welcome the introduction of a brand new set of regulations in what will be the biggest shake-up of rules since the beginning of the V6 hybrid era 11 years ago.

An increased reliance on electric power, the removal of DRS and the reduction of ground effect are just some of the changes that will feature on the new cars.

Such was the magnitude of the new regulations in 2014, that huge differences between the successful and failed interpretations of them were on display.

Vowles, who was a key proponent of Mercedes’ success in that particular period, has said that dominance similar to what the German marque enjoyed is unlikely to be repeated.

“I don’t think we’re going to have the gaps we had in 2014 on power units to be completely clear,” he told media including Motorsport Week. “I don’t think it’s going to be anywhere near that amount.

“I think power units, up until probably the last three years, have probably dominated most championships would be a second argument I bring to your attention.

“But in answering it, what you’re saying is could the chassis be up to half a second difference? Yes, is the answer. That’s what we’re seeing at the moment.

“There’s still lots of goodness that you can consume in that area. Where it falls out, I don’t know yet. We’re just trying to do our best to get up there.”

The FIA’s single-seater director Nikolas Tombazis corroborated Vowles’ take, adding that he is somewhat unhappy with the lack of simplicity in the final regulations.

“I don’t think that we are going to have a situation where a single manufacturer has such a huge advantage as was the case in 2014,” he told Autosport.

“The engines are still not as simple as we would have liked. We would have liked to go further, but we had a lot of resistance against simplifying the regulations more.

“So there are things that we would have liked to be even simpler, but they are still simpler than the current generation of engines.

“They don’t have the MGU-H [heat energy recovery system], and there are a few things that have tighter limits, so we don’t think the gaps will be as big as in 2014.”

The solution to eradicate performance gaps in F1 2026

Tombazis explained that the FIA is introducing a concept known as Additional Development and Upgrade Opportunities [ADUO].

This will help the newer manufacturers from falling behind the more established from gaining any significant advantage.

“We do have newcomers, and it is always a risk at the start of a new cycle that there is some divergence initially,” Tombazis said.

“Additionally, we have a cost gap for the PU manufacturers now.”

Tombazis explained that ADUO “has been the product of a lot of work,” adding: “It was already there from day one of the regulations, but in the last few months more detail has been put into it to define exactly how that is going to operate.”

“Essentially every five, six races there will be an average performance measured for each PU manufacturer,” Tombazis continued. “Those who are below a certain level, and depending on how much below they are, will get that benefit accumulating over the year.

“That benefit would translate into three things: one is additional development money, some more dyno hours and the possibility to make a new homologation of the engine.

“So people who are behind will have the opportunity to speed up and catch up.”

PU manufacturers ‘extremely collaborative’ on ADUO

Tombazis explained that ADUO will have little similarity to the Balance of Performance regulations, as seen in the World Endurance Championship.

“I want to stress that I completely refute any comment about that being a Balance of Performance or anything like that, because first of all, the regulations are exactly the same for everyone,” he said.

“It’s not like we are giving them more cubic capacity, more fuel or whatever.

“Secondly, if there was no cost cap, they would throw a lot of money at it.

“When Honda were behind in 2016, 2017, for a certain period they had to spend a lot more money to catch up.

“With a cost cap the risk is that you would never be able to do that, and that you would be behind eternally.

“You would just be humiliated for a whole regulation cycle, and clearly we don’t want that.

“We don’t think that would be fair, and I have to say that PU manufacturers have been extremely collaborative on this topic.”

Tombazis also revealed there will be an additional initiative in place to ensure teams that might suffer reliability issues will also be afforded leeway.

“There is an additional initiative which addresses the situation where a PU manufacturer has huge reliability issues to start with,” he highlighted.

“Imagine somebody who blows up an engine each race weekend and each engine costs a lot of money.

“They suddenly find that they are eating their cost cap with blown engines. They have to reduce the development to stay below the cost cap, and you can imagine that would be an awful situation.

“So we’ve got some initiatives, which are going through the same phase of discussion now, and will hopefully be approved quite soon, whereby once you use more than a certain number of engines, you start having a certain cost cap relief.

“Your engines, once you exceed that number, cost very little from a cost cap point of view.

“Not in terms of real money, of course, they still cost the same unfortunately, but it means that we protect them from a situation where somebody is in an awful position and has no way to react under the cost cap. That would be really unfortunate.”

READ MORE – Williams boss predicts ‘big driver market move’ for 2027 F1 season

The post Why F1 2026 will not see a repeat of 2014 performance gaps appeared first on Motorsport Week.

Ferrari boss Fred Vasseur defended the FIA’s decision to delay Formula 1‘s Belgian Grand Prix, admitting it would have been to first “to give them s**t” if an accident had occurred in wet conditions.

The race at Spa-Francorchamps was postponed by over an hour due to bad weather, a move that was criticised by Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen.

Both men complained their race set-ups were made with rain in mind, and were left frustrated as the race started a 16:00 local time, one hour and 20 minutes later than scheduled, when the rain had largely passed.

Hamilton and Verstappen’s opinions were that the decision taken was an overreaction of how changeable weather conditions at the British Grand Prix earlier this month had been handled.

Vasseur came forward to make a case for it being the right call, saying that if an accident had happened amid a scheduled start, teams would have reacted differently

“We can’t blame them because we would be collectively the first ones to give them sh*t if something happened,” the Frenchman told media including Motorsport Week.

“In this sense, we have to respect their decision.

“I can speak frankly because I have one car pushing on the high downforce, one car pushing on the low downforce and I was comfortable to respect their decision because they are taking a huge responsibility also.”

The difference between drivers and team bosses on delayed Belgian GP

Despite Hamilton and Verstappen being on the same page when it came to the delayed start, Vasseur was making a counterpoint, which was shared by Andrea Stella.

The McLaren boss was also lenient on the FIA’s handling of the situation, telling media including Motorsport Week that it had been a sensible course of action.

“I think today the race was managed in a very wise way,” he said, “because we knew that there was a lot of rain coming, and I think in a circuit like this, if you make the calls late, it may be too late, and the outcome could be difficult. 

“We always praise the work of the FIA when this is deserved, and I think this is one of the cases in which this should be praised.

“Because I understand that it would be quite entertaining to see cars going in wet conditions, but we all should be wary that the average speed in Spa is so high that the cars just displace such a large amount of water that it’s just impossible to see.”

READ MORE – Ferrari ceases SF-25 development amid attention on new 2026 F1 regulations

The post Ferrari admits ‘we would give FIA sh*t’ if F1 Belgian GP had not been delayed appeared first on Motorsport Week.

Lewis Hamilton has criticised the FIA’s cautious handling of the wet conditions at the Formula 1 Belgian Grand Prix, attributing the lengthy delay to an overreaction following the controversial start procedure at Silverstone in the previous race.

The race at Spa-Francorchamps was delayed by over an hour due to the poor visibility amid treacherous conditions.

However, that didn’t stop some drivers from hitting out at race control for the lack of urgency to get the Grand Prix underway, including the seven-time World Champion.

Hamilton recovered from a pit lane start and a poor qualifying session to finish seventh with an impressive charge through the field.

Yet, speaking after the race, he could not hold back his discontent with the handling of the start of the race.

“We obviously started the race a little too late, I would say,” he told media including Motorsport Week.

“I kept shouting, it’s ready to go, it’s ready to go. And they kept going round and round and round.

“So I think they were probably overreacting from the last race — where we asked them not to restart the race too early because visibility was bad.

“I think this weekend, they just made it a bit too much the other way. Because we didn’t need a rolling start.”

The Ferrari driver was referring to the British Grand Prix, where the FIA opted for an earlier start than many drivers would have preferred, following the formation lap taking place behind the Safety Car.

But this weekend, drivers like Max Verstappen voiced a different concern, arguing that there will “never be classic wet races” if the FIA continues to halt racing in wet conditions.

Hamilton echoed Verstappen’s sentiment, adding when asked if he would have liked the race to start sooner: “Yeah, my car was set up for [the wet-weather racing conditions] as well. They waited for it to dry.”

Hamilton on standing start feasibility and wet race caution at Spa

Hamilton was later asked if a standing start had been feasible despite the wet conditions.

“Yeah, definitely could have done a standing start. Especially at the end there,” he replied.

“It was almost a dry line. It was hot in the spray. So definitely could have done it.”

He also explained that the cautious approach at Spa was influenced not only by Silverstone but also by the concerns of drivers at the front, expressing disappointment with the governing body’s handling of the situation that led to the race being red-flagged.

“I think it was just a reaction to Silverstone — we sat down and spoke about it — and the drivers said in the last race we shouldn’t have restarted,” Hamilton said.

“So I think they just focused on visibility — as soon as someone said visibility up ahead was really bad, which it wasn’t great, but it wasn’t as bad as the last race.

“And I think they just waited to be sure. I think they still did a good job. Of course, we missed some of the extreme wet racing, which I think would have been nice.

“But for some reason, the spray here this year is like going through fog. I don’t know what we’re going to do to try and fix that.”

READ MORE — F1 Belgian GP start delayed due to heavy rain at Spa

The post Lewis Hamilton slams FIA for ‘overreacting’ to Silverstone with F1 Belgian GP delay appeared first on Motorsport Week.

Formula 1 will trial a revised driver identification system this weekend at the Belgian Grand Prix, introducing three-letter acronyms to each car’s onboard ‘T-bar’ cameras.

The updated branding, placed on the roll hoop camera housing, will display abbreviations such as ‘LEC’ for Charles Leclerc or ‘NOR’ for Lando Norris to help fans more clearly distinguish drivers during live broadcasts.

The change is being evaluated by the F1’s management group, in collaboration with the FIA, during all sessions at Spa and forms part of a wider push to improve viewer experience through clearer, real-time visual cues. A full rollout could follow if the test proves successful.

F1 has attempted similar ideas in the past. In 2017, the sport revised its regulations to require larger car numbers and mandated that driver acronyms be displayed on the car.

While some teams, like Force India, initially resisted — even receiving a suspended fine at the Spanish Grand Prix — the team eventually complied, with the acronyms remaining on its cars until the end of that season.

The series also tested a digital display mounted on the side of the onboard camera in 2014, aiming to show tyre data or fastest lap information.

That experiment didn’t move forward in F1, but IndyCar briefly adopted a similar system before shelving it.

Currently, teams are required to display the driver’s number and name on the car’s bodywork, while the onboard camera housing must differ in colour between teammates — one black, the other fluorescent yellow — to help distinguish between the two.

The latest tweak, using each driver’s three-letter abbreviation, mirrors what appears on official timing screens and aims to make car and driver recognition even more intuitive during live coverage.

Whether it becomes a permanent fixture will depend on the outcome of the trial at Spa.

READ MORE — Why F1 teams have opted to bring upgrades to Belgian GP on a Sprint weekend

The post F1 to trial new driver branding on onboard cameras at Belgian GP appeared first on Motorsport Week.

Oscar Piastri has revealed that both he and McLaren held talks with the FIA in the aftermath of the Safety Car controversy at the Formula 1 British Grand Prix.

The Australian came under scrutiny for braking sharply behind the Safety Car, earning a time penalty that denied him victory at Silverstone.

Max Verstappen claimed he was forced to take evasive action, with the stewards siding with the Red Bull driver – a verdict that left Piastri visibly frustrated.

He kept his thoughts measured in the immediate aftermath, resisting the urge to criticise in parc ferme interviews.

But after a two-week break to reflect, Piastri has revealed the outcome of discussions held between himself, McLaren, and the FIA.

Speaking ahead of the Belgian Grand Prix, Piastri first reflected on the debrief with his McLaren team.

And while he was happy to move on from the incident, he pointed out that similar manoeuvres had gone unpunished in the past.

“Yeah, I obviously looked through it with the team afterwards. I think there’s been a lot of learning on both sides,” he told media including Motorsport Week.

“I still have my feelings about it, I guess, but it’s in the past now and I’ve moved on.

“For me, it was a manoeuvre that had been done before by myself in some cases, but other drivers as well in the past, in an identical manner.

“Obviously, if it needs to be penalised now, then that’s fine, I know that for the future. Immediately after the race, I was frustrated.”

Piastri reflects on FIA talks clarifying Safety Car rules

A similar incident unfolded at the Canadian Grand Prix, where Verstappen was irritated by leader George Russell’s ‘erratic’ braking behind the Safety Car during a restart.

On that occasion, the stewards sided with Russell, but after a different ruling at Silverstone, the federation appears to have taken steps to better define the regulations surrounding such scenarios.

Piastri confirmed that conversations took place with the governing body to gain clarity on the matter moving forward.

“We’ve had discussions with the FIA – like I said, I think there was learning on both sides about how that situation could have been handled differently,” he added.

“For myself, I won’t brake as hard next time, it’s as simple as that. I think also now the threshold is a bit clearer on where that stands, so I would just simply not brake this hard.”

Looking ahead to the Belgian GP, Piastri revealed why Spa is his favourite track and what a win here would mean to him as he strives to protect his points lead.

“I would like to win anywhere, but here is always a track I’ve really enjoyed from the first time I came here,” he expressed.

“There’s a lot of corners here that are unique to Spa. The setting in the forest, the length of the track, the layout, and some of the iconic corners you don’t find anywhere else – that’s what I love about it.

“It’s just a very challenging layout overall, with plenty of straights for overtaking and very technical sections in Sector 2. It’s always been a track I’ve really enjoyed.”

READ MORE – Oscar Piastri explains his reluctance to adopt revised McLaren F1 front suspension

The post Oscar Piastri reveals McLaren talks with FIA over F1 British GP Safety Car penalty appeared first on Motorsport Week.