It’s honest to say that the 2026 Formulation 1 season has to this point generated extra controversy off the monitor than on it, with the standard limitless debates surrounding the laws – and earlier than that, Mercedes’ engine compression ratio.
On monitor, nevertheless, issues have remained comparatively calm. There have been a handful of incidents and collisions right here and there, however nothing sufficiently contentious to position stewards underneath heavy scrutiny. In the meanwhile, they’ve largely escaped criticism.
Trying solely on the Sunday races, the opening three grands prix of the yr had been surprisingly uneventful within the stewards’ room.
In Australia, 4 incidents had been investigated with out leading to a single penalty. In China, just one race incident was formally investigated – the collision between Esteban Ocon and Franco Colapinto. In Japan, in an especially uncommon incidence, no investigations had been launched through the race, not even for the conflict between Colapinto and Oliver Bearman.
Miami, the primary race following April’s unexpectedly lengthy break, noticed a rise in contentious conditions however nonetheless comparatively few penalties. In the end, Canada grew to become the primary occasion genuinely marked by important steward intervention.
One fixed however emerges from each stewarding resolution to this point this season: not a single penalty level has been issued on a superlicence in 2026. Final yr, sporting penalties had been accompanied by penalty factors on 5 events over the opening 5 grands prix. In 2024, that determine stood at eight.
It’s well-known that, following the debates sparked amongst drivers by Pierre Gasly’s scenario on the finish of 2022 and Bearman’s place late final season, the FIA and the stewards have sought to take a softer method to penalties that had been generally seen as extreme for infractions not thought of genuinely harmful.
The intention itself is comprehensible. It avoids inserting drivers prone to suspension for accumulating “minor” errors, whereas making an attempt to revive the system’s authentic function: punishing genuinely critical offences and discouraging repeat behaviour.
Far more lenient stewards
Esteban Ocon acquired no penalty factors for the collision with Franco Colapinto in China.
Photograph by: James Sutton / Formulation 1 / Formulation Motorsport Ltd through Getty Photos
Nonetheless, after the Canadian Grand Prix, one has to wonder if the pendulum has now swung too far in the other way. The case of Isack Hadjar is maybe essentially the most revealing.
The Purple Bull driver was penalised twice through the Canadian GP. The primary got here for his defence in opposition to Charles Leclerc, throughout which he modified path a number of instances. He acquired a 10-second penalty.
The infringement was clear, doubtlessly harmful, but the stewards imposed no penalty factors. One might debate the choice, however it’s in step with what has been seen this yr concerning offences punished by 10-second penalties.
Throughout the identical race, Oscar Piastri – penalised for inflicting contact with Alex Albon – additionally acquired a 10-second penalty with none penalty factors. Going again to China, the identical utilized to Ocon following his collision with Colapinto: 10 seconds, however no factors.
That already displays a much more lenient interpretation of penalty factors. In every case, accountability was apparent, the offence unmistakable, and whereas after all nobody would recommend deliberate intent, the errors themselves appeared sufficiently critical (generally with actual penalties) to warrant greater than a easy sporting penalty.
Final season, a number of defensive strikes usually resulted in a single penalty level, whereas accountability for avoidable collisions typically resulted in two.
But it’s Hadjar’s second penalty in Montreal that raises even higher questions.
The Frenchman dedicated what’s historically considered a very critical offence: failing to “make a major discount in pace” underneath double yellow flags. Even when the wording alone doesn’t absolutely convey the gravity of the infringement, the dimensions of the punishment definitely does – a 10-second stop-and-go penalty, one of many harshest sanctions obtainable in trendy Formulation 1, wanting disqualification.
And but, as soon as once more, no penalty factors had been issued.
What modified in 2026?
The drivers banded collectively to push for extra lenient penalties.
Photograph by: Sam Bagnall / Sutton Photos through Getty Photos
In accordance with data gathered by Autosport, this shift within the software of penalty factors stems from winter discussions between the FIA and the drivers. The drivers reportedly pushed for a softer system wherein factors would solely be issued for behaviour deemed deliberate or reckless.
That philosophical shift is clearly mirrored within the amendments made between 2025 and 2026 to the rules outlining penalties for each stewards and the general public.
In comparison with 2025, the doc now explicitly states from the outset that, in a variety of circumstances – these the place the corresponding penalty factors are marked with an asterisk – the determine proven “denotes the rule MAXIMUM” (sure, in capital letters), and that “any variety of factors from 0 to that quantity may very well be imposed”.
Basically, that clarification doesn’t drastically alter what was already widespread observe final yr. Nonetheless, the truth that the doc now explicitly states from the start that issuing no penalty factors in any respect is totally acceptable is very revealing.
Take the failure to respect double yellow flags throughout a race. The wording itself has not modified: the stewards are nonetheless instructed to impose a 10-second stop-and-go penalty, whereas retaining the choice to concern as much as three penalty factors – a determine marked, in each 2025 and 2026, by the identical asterisk.
The identical applies to a number of modifications of path in defence: sporting penalties can vary from 5 seconds to a drive-through penalty, whereas stewards might concern as much as three penalty factors.
The extra important modifications concern the offence that traditionally attracted penalty factors greater than some other: inflicting a collision.
The doc now specifies that “penalty factors for inflicting [a collision] must be adjusted primarily based on the severity of the incident brought about”. It confirms what a number of stewarding selections already made clear final season – that penalties are explicitly taken into consideration.
The shift turns into even clearer within the part describing “inflicting a collision with no quick and apparent sporting consequence”. A word states in plain phrases: “a ‘collision’ [in] which very minor contract e.g. a contact or ‘kiss’ might lead to no penalty”. In such circumstances, the utmost variety of penalty factors obtainable has been lowered to zero, whereas final yr stewards might impose as much as three.
Conversely, for collisions involving “obvious deliberate or reckless intent”, the prescribed 4 penalty factors stay unchanged, theoretically with none risk of discount.
A points-based system stripped of its substance?
Kevin Magnussen is the one driver to have been suspended underneath the factors system since 2014.
Photograph by: Sam Bloxham / Motorsport Photos
The intention, as set out within the documentation, to impose fewer penalty factors and, general, to cut back the variety of penalties, is subsequently clear. It’s a defensible goal in precept, however the Hadjar case in Canada raises tough questions.
Lowering sanctions with a view to give attention to genuinely critical offences is one factor. But when ignoring double yellow flags not qualifies as a critical infringement, then the vary of offences more likely to set off penalty factors has change into extraordinarily slender.
In a proof by contradiction, one might fairly ask whether or not Max Verstappen would even have acquired penalty factors in 2026 for the collision with George Russell on the 2025 Spanish Grand Prix. On the time, the stewards stopped wanting describing the transfer as “deliberate” or “reckless” – regardless of many contemplating it clearly intentional.
From there, the query turns into easy: what’s the function of sustaining a penalty factors system in Formulation 1 if stewards are more and more reluctant to concern factors even in conditions far faraway from the “minor” incidents that sparked debate lately?
This isn’t a case of crossing the pit exit line, ignoring blue flags for too lengthy, and even forcing one other driver off monitor throughout a hard-fought battle. It considerations a breach of certainly one of motorsport’s most basic security guidelines: disregarding one of many clearest warning alerts in racing.
The penalty factors system might by no means have functioned completely – and even ideally – however as we speak it dangers being stripped of virtually all which means whether it is reserved just for excessive, and subsequently exceedingly uncommon, circumstances, with none real consideration of repeat offences.
Whether or not the choice to undertake a extra lenient method is correct or unsuitable shouldn’t be for us to guage. That belongs to the governing physique and the stakeholders concerned, and there are completely legitimate arguments in its favour. However one query stays totally reputable: is it nonetheless related to take care of the system conceived in 2014 in its present kind? There’s room for doubt.
We wish to hear from you!
Tell us what you wish to see from us sooner or later.
– The Autosport.com Group
