Efforts to improve Formula 1’s rules have been frustrated by the “embarrassing” outcomes of some team principals’ meetings, says McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown.
He believes F1’s governance structure gives teams too much power to block rules changes. Brown accused other team principals of changing their stance on some issues between meetings depending on whether they stood to benefit from them.According to Brown, former Alpine team principal Otmar Szafnauer opposed reforming the penalty points system when Lando Norris came within two points of an automatic suspension, but softened his stance later when his driver Pierre Gasly came even closer to being banned.
“It can be pretty embarrassing in times in the team principal meetings,” said Brown. “An example being when Lando was up on penalty points two years ago, and we made our case that, actually, the majority of those penalty points weren’t ‘dangerous’ and Otmar was totally against it, because obviously everyone wanted to give Lando a ban.
“Fast-forward 12 months, Gasly’s up against it, Otmar brings forward the same exact case that we brought forward and we were like ‘dude, you voted against that?’ He didn’t even know where he voted. And that’s not healthy, because it shows that one year it might work for you, the following year it might not work for you.”
Brown believes reducing the majority needed for votes to carry would make it harder for teams to block changes out of self-interest.
“To take this kind of ‘what’s good for me today’ vote out of the system, I think you’ve just got to stand back and let the FIA and Formula 1 regulate for the fairness of the sport. Which means you’re going to win some, lose some. There could be some times that we lose in the short-term, because we would have liked to block something.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
“I believe McLaren want to race in a fair and sporting and equitable way, which means sometimes it might go for you, sometimes it might go against you. But over the long haul, if we’re all in a sport that is about total fairness, and things are equal for everyone, I think that’s just a better sport. We all win.”
The F1 Commission can only approve changes proposed after April for the following year’s championship if a majority of 28 out of 30 votes are in favour. The FIA and FOM each have 10 votes and the teams hold one each, meaning a proposal can be blocked if just three teams oppose it.
“I’d like to see the teams have less authority,” said Brown. “[Still] as much of a voice, through voting for all these different things that we vote on, but I’d like to see us get rid of majority votes and get to a simple ‘50%, something gets through’ because we’re all conflicted in some way at some point.”
“We do need to give more of the power back to Formula 1 and the FIA to do what they think is right for the sport,” he added. “I think we’re our own worst problem at times.”
Last weekend several drivers raised concerns over the complexity of the racing rules following the row over the collision between Max Verstappen and Lando Norris in Austria. Brown believes the rule-making process has also contributed to this.
“I think the teams collectively are pretty guilty of creating a lot of these issues themselves by over-complicating what we want in race cars, what we want on regulations,” he said. “Something will happen and then we’ll all spend an inordinate amount of time getting into so much detail, and we don’t necessarily think about the unintended consequences.”
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Although Verstappen was held responsible for the collision and penalised, he came away from the race with more points than Norris. Despite that, Brown does not believe penalties should be adjusted to take into account the consequences for the drivers involved.
“I think you’ve got to be consistent with your application of the penalties, regardless of the outcome,” he said. “If you take the incident in Austria – the 10-second penalty [for Verstappen] – that could have been nothing more than just tyre marks on each other’s sidepods. It happened to be that it cost two guys the race, one any points, but you can’t dial up the penalty because that happened – you’ve got to penalise whatever the incident is.
“It does make me wonder how did we go racing without any of this stuff for as long as we did and not have any of these controversies?”
Bringing the F1 news from the source
RaceFans strives to bring its readers news directly from the key players in Formula 1. We are able to do this thanks in part to the generous backing of our RaceFans Supporters.
By contributing £1 per month or £12 per year (or the equivalent in other currencies) you can help cover the costs involved in producing original journalism: Travelling, writing, creating, hosting, contacting and developing.
We have been proudly supported by our readers for over 10 years. If you enjoy our independent coverage, please consider becoming a RaceFans Supporter today. As a bonus, all our Supporters can also browse the site ad-free. Sign up or find out more via the links below:
Miss nothing from RaceFans
Get a daily email with all our latest stories - and nothing else. No marketing, no ads. Sign up here:
Formula 1
- 2024 Formula 1 driver rankings #11: Esteban Ocon
- 2024 Formula 1 driver rankings #12: Yuki Tsunoda
- 2024 Formula 1 driver rankings #13: Alexander Albon
- 2024 Formula 1 driver rankings #14: Kevin Magnussen
- F1 drivers face bans and points deductions if they break FIA ‘misconduct’ rules
chimaera2003 (@chimaera2003)
11th July 2024, 12:14
This is just the way that US sports are run in getting the teams power in the rule making process. In the NFL any new rules have to get 24 votes (out of 32) to become rules. The idea that the participants (not directly but you get the point) have so much power on this seems to have conflict-of-interest issues written all over it.
I agree that teams should get a vote and a say in the overall process as they are so commercially committed (hundreds of millions of dollars of investment) to F1’s success but it needs to be more arms length.
What probably should happen is that stakeholders (eg FOM, teams, broadcasters etc) get to vote on members for a rule-making body who need to be periodically re-elected.
All sounds great in theory that may crash land on implementation but it can’t be worse than how it appears to work at the moment.
Optimaximal (@optimaximal)
11th July 2024, 12:25
@chimaera2003 F1 had this structure before Liberty were involved. Bernie used it as a means to get his way in the early 2010’s by effectively buying votes from big teams like Ferrari and Red Bull (their vote being worth double) via improved commercial conditions.
Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
11th July 2024, 12:24
Typical corporate elitist reasoning. The people are viewed merely as consumers of their products at whatever price they set, without any say. Much like their politicians, who only value people’s support to get to the office, then prioritize the interests of donors and lobbyists.
I still remember how he cut over 1,000 jobs during the COVID period and put employees on the furlough scheme using taxpayer money, while his shareholders remain some of the wealthiest people on the planet.
The more Zak speaks, the more he reveals his true colours.
Optimaximal (@optimaximal)
11th July 2024, 12:31
@tifoso1989
Why is this even a point of attack? It’s not like McLaren were the only company to take advantage of that scheme and it was designed to stop companies having to lay off hundreds of workers who, given the volatility of the situation, would just end up on tax-payer funded benefits anyway.
Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
11th July 2024, 15:55
Ferrari were able to do the exact same thing and pay their employees through the “Cassa Integrazione” in Italy but they didn’t.
notagrumpyfan
11th July 2024, 13:19
What’s ‘elitist’ about a team principal saying that he wants less power for the teams.
And let’s stop misusing the word ‘elitist’. Almost all people who use that word are frustrated people (or populist demagogues) who are not able to understand the real cause of their unhappiness and resort to simply blaming others who they think are better off.
Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
11th July 2024, 16:08
Zak is speaking on behalf of Liberty which is a typical American corporate. The term “elitist” is often used to describe a perceived disconnection between those in power or wealth and the general public. If the term “elitist” bothers you, please let me know so I can avoid using it in the future and spare us any unnecessary childish tantrum.
notagrumpyfan
11th July 2024, 16:20
Zak speaks on behalf of Liberty?
I’m glad you use ‘perceived’ in your understanding of the term; that’s one step towards the definition I gave you.
You seem to have missed though that using the term ‘elitist’ typically says more about the people who use that term than about the issue they want to raise.
Nick T.
14th July 2024, 21:52
Are you OK? We can help you if you need to talk through something, Tifosi.
Sonny Crockett (@sonnycrockett)
11th July 2024, 14:59
What a bizarre rant!
What Zak is saying is that he wants to just get on and race with as little political to-ing and fro-ing as possible.
That sounds like common sense to me!
Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
11th July 2024, 16:00
We’ve seen how he politicized a minor racing incident between his driver and Verstappen to take cheap shots at RBR.
SteveP
11th July 2024, 19:28
The phrase you were looking for is “called out one of the fairy stories trotted out by Horner/Marko”
Osnola
12th July 2024, 13:08
Not really. Zak spinned the minor contact and made it something special.
It seems he liked the way two fools in 2021 imitated team bosses and want some.
tielemst
11th July 2024, 21:09
Sorry, clicked the report button with my fat fingers.
EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
13th July 2024, 6:50
Isn’t this just junping on the Zak bashing bandwagon. I find it very hard to criticise his comments here as his proposals provide no driect disproportionate benefit to himself, yet somehow he is in the wrong?
Nick T.
14th July 2024, 21:55
Exactly, I dislike Zak, but his comments here were bang on regardless of how often he sounds like an utter rhymes with bot and starts with a t.
Mr A
15th July 2024, 11:35
Tot?
Lol what
Jere (@jerejj)
11th July 2024, 12:55
I’d totally forgotten that Norris was once as close to reaching 12 penalty points as Gasly & Magnussen.
I agree that teams shouldn’t have so much say on rules getting approved or disapproved, if any.
Simon
11th July 2024, 23:01
Selective memory, Klokkenluider?
Nick T.
14th July 2024, 21:57
I didn’t remember and I’m not a Lando fan (also don’t dislike either).
Señor Sjon
11th July 2024, 13:29
So Zak voted in favor the second time? The story doesn’t tell that. Also Zak, only getting worried about the penalty points when his own driver is under threat.
SteveP
11th July 2024, 19:35
Zak treated that in the same fashion as Williams (and others) treated the plea for special treatment for Ferrari when a loose drain cover damaged the floor of Sainz’s car.
Williams (and other people) recalling how Ferrari vetoed special treatment for Williams when Russell had his floor damaged by a loose drain in 2019.
Either don’t veto special treatment for others, or be prepared to be on the negative end of it at some time in the future.
Nick T.
14th July 2024, 22:00
It’s a good point. These teams to have a meeting with each other and go over things they will now agree to vote in unity upon. If a team breaks their word, all 9 other teams will take their turn vetoing their interests. It’s the only way to stop the cycle of revelation voting.
Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
11th July 2024, 13:42
You change the majority needed and you can have all the Mercedes teams (for example) pushing one idea together and getting the green light. What’s the difference?
Red Andy (@red-andy)
11th July 2024, 18:17
Under the current system, Mercedes has an effective veto if the works team and its customers all vote as a bloc. Same for Ferrari. The majority threshold isn’t the problem, it’s the fact that the teams are allowed a say on the sporting rules at all.
Roger Ayles (@roger-ayles)
11th July 2024, 14:09
Because it used to be a sport and it used to be accepted that when you had drivers racing hard that sometimes contact would happen and that this was just part of the sport.
Back then if you had a racing incident unless one of the drivers had acted dangerously things used to be discussed amongst the drivers with no involvement from the stewards or the FIA unless drivers felt it was necessary for them to get involved.
Now all you need to do is slightly rub wheels and it’s noted & investigated. It’s pathetic. Just let them race & only step in when it is absolutely necessary to do so, That been when somebody has done something truly boneheaded, intentional or dangerously reckless. Contact or crowding when racing hard are just racing incidents & should be left for the drivers to discuss amongst themselves.
It’s frankly pathetic how convoluted and complicated the racing rules have become over the past 10-15 years or so. It’s getting harder to enjoy a good fight when your constantly having to wonder who was more alongside at what points of the cornering phase and micro analyse every detail of every movement of each car at every point to work out if it’s allowed or not. We need to go back to real racing where drivers are left to race and where hard racing, aggressive racing & a bit of rubbing is allowed.
I mean i wonder what the modern racing rules would make of this. Something that as you hear from the commentary was called ‘excellent driving’ at the time (12:19 if the time code doesn’t auto start it there).
https://youtu.be/V61V24dUEyk?si=E0roMvtBUFidHdQY&t=739
MichaelN
11th July 2024, 14:15
Pushing people off is not racing anywhere outside of Xbox and F1.
It’s with good reason that this is one of the few racing rules put into the Code and noted to be “explicitly” forbidden.
anon
12th July 2024, 8:20
MichaelN, Roger has been constantly spamming out the same posts and the same clips again and again because he’s not interested in a discussion – he’s more interested in showing off to a particular audience that wants to hear him bang the drum of “traditional values”.
Osnola
12th July 2024, 13:12
Sounds more a bit like ” anon” often using fake info to support a personal view.
Todfod (@todfod)
13th July 2024, 7:33
Having watched F1 for nearly 3 decades now.. I still don’t get the fans who say ‘let them race and sort it out later’ . Maybe some fans don’t remember the antics of Schumacher stealing a title away from Hill by intentionally crashing in to him and then trying the same antic 3 years later. Maybe they don’t remember drivers making their car so wide and pushing other drivers off the circuit to prevent a legitimate overtake at any cost. Heck, just look back at max’s driving in the 2021 season.. brake checking, intentionally crashing and braking so late that he can just cut corners and defend his position. That isn’t even racing.
There are always drivers who will push what is defined as ‘racing’ way beyond the limit if there aren’t rules in place. I think this is a sport like anything else. I don’t see football fans saying let’s scrap fouls altogether and let them ‘play’
Nick T.
14th July 2024, 22:03
Let them race and sort it out later has only ever worked in NASCAR. It wouldn’t work in F1 (unless backmarkers agreed to be the enforcers) and hasn’t been tried.
S
11th July 2024, 15:12
Need any more be said about it?
Self explanatory. F1 was run by the (largely impartial) organisation/s suitable to do so – not by the participants.
JD
11th July 2024, 15:18
This is what 2021 did. Broke the trust between teams and the FIA. It is a long road to gain that trust back. We are still in the thick of it.
baasbas
12th July 2024, 7:57
Zak is a hypocritical bag of wind whenever he opens his mouth lately..
But he can still make sense. I see nothing wrong with this one
Mayrton
12th July 2024, 9:23
Embarrassing and team principles in one sentence is todays reality. How those linked to big corporations are allowed to stay in office is quite remarkable.