George Russell says the FIA will adjust its Formula 1 driving standards guidelines for 2025 after meeting with drivers.
The change follows concerns expressed by several drivers over the stewards’ handling of some incidents this year, notably Lando Norris’s penalty for overtaking Max Verstappen off the track in Austin, after he was forced wide by the Red Bull driver.Since the start of the 2022 season, stewards have relied on a set of ‘driving standards guidelines’ to help them assess racing incidents, providing a general framework for their decisions. Verstappen in particular has been criticised for his so-called ‘divebomb’ defence which relies on him being ahead of rivals at the apex of corners to deny having to leave space for them at corner exit.
After F1 drivers met with FIA stewards, Russell, a director of the Grand Prix Drivers Association, said new updates for 2025 will include a revision to outlaw ‘divebomb’ defending.
“I don’t think a lot needed to be changed,” Russell told the official F1 website. “I think there was maybe the odd sentence that needed to be gotten rid of. Such as if you were overtaking on the inside, you need to leave a car’s width apex-to-exit, hence why I got the penalty in Austin.
“There wasn’t necessarily anything in the guidelines about Max’s manoeuvre: If you divebomb and go off the track, that is effectively out of control. So everybody’s in agreement with [changing] these things.
“It’s not like turning the thing upside down and rewriting the whole rulebook. I think just the odd thing needed to be changed and I think that’s been positive.”
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
The GPDA published an open letter to the governing body earlier this month calling for more transparency from the organisation and its president, Mohammed ben Sulayem. In the weeks following, the FIA changed F1’s race director and also dropped regular steward Tim Mayer.
“Obviously, in the meantime, someone else has just been sacked,” Russell said. “So just when we’re asking for a bit of transparency and consistency, there’s no transparency and there’s no consistency. So let’s see who the next one is.”
Russell’s team mate Lewis Hamilton was pleased with the discussions. “The meeting was really, really productive with the stewards,” he said. “It’s the first time we’ve really sat down and really had a real clear, open discussion with the stewards who have such a difficult job to do over the weekend.
“Every overtake and every scenario is so different to the others. There’s nothing that’s going to change for these next two races. But for next year we’re working on the process. We welcome having more conversations with them moving forwards because we want to help them do a better job, and they welcomed that.”
Miss nothing from RaceFans
Get a daily email with all our latest stories - and nothing else. No marketing, no ads. Sign up here:
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
2024 Qatar Grand Prix
- Horner ‘believes 100%’ Verstappen did not threaten to crash into Russell
- Russell and Verstappen cast new light on clash which triggered explosive row
- Hamilton’s puncture not caused by mirror debris – Mercedes
- Another start-to-finish win shows Qatar GP could be F1’s most processional race
- “Am I dead last now?” Unheard radio from Hamilton’s disastrous Qatar GP
SPArtacus
28th November 2024, 20:30
You can’t legislate dive bombing. You can only legislate against a driver forcing another car off. If they actually approach it from the idea of addressing braking extremely late to take the inside, they will create a mess. It’s pretty simple, if you can make the corner and not force the other driver off, you haven’t done anything wrong. Luckily, they don’t have the power to change anything. Only ask.
This is why being careful about your wording is important.
MichaelN
28th November 2024, 23:47
That’s already the rule. The problem is that F1 thinks it doesn’t have to abide by the FIA Code.
A big reason for this is the selection of stewards. Many of whom are former drivers and/or are way too chummy with the F1 world.
SPArtacus
29th November 2024, 4:24
Yes, I am aware that that is already a rule. However, there is a ton of space in the rules because after all, the inside driver having “the right to their line” has been the agreed upon practice forever with the inside driver having the right to run the other driver out of room with the de facto test being if the line was natural it was OK. If the line was unnatural due to the inside driver trying to run the other car off the road or because they were simply out of control, that’s where a penalty would be called.
Because of the RD and stewards’ failure to use their discretionary prerogative, they may need to encourage policing by expanding the language to specify if the inside driver is only able to make pass/corner if The other driver was [legitimately] taking evasive action or with a line that would inevitably run the other driver off, it will be deemed the same as forcing a driver off.
It’s general absurd though. We shouldn’t need to rely on language. Most of this is common sense even if it hard to put into words. I’d be more confident with my regional race director and stewards on these calls than F1, which seems suffocated by legalese, a lack of common sense and fear of “ruining” the show or upsetting a popular driver’s fanbase.
SPArtacus
29th November 2024, 4:25
in practice*
Ludewig
29th November 2024, 11:04
The issue with ‘unnatural driving’ as a standard is that both offensive and defensive driving is unnatural compared to driving without there being a chance/threat of an overtake. So how do you implement that without banning all overtakes, or conversely, banning all defensive driving?
And I disagree that this is common sense. If it was obvious, it wouldn’t have been a been an issue for so long.
SPArtacus
30th November 2024, 7:57
It is common sense in that experienced and competent racers, RDs, stewards observers, etc. can tell the difference between a genuine attempt to make a corner and give the other driver room and a driver intentionally forcing a driver to choose between crashing or going off, especially with all the data and camera angles if it’s not immediately clear which one it was. The lack of common sense comes in the form of stewards and directors who don’t use their powers of discretion to make a call. But sometimes what appears to be a lack of common sense may be an RD or steward being too cowardly or worried about their job or reaction if they make the call they believe is correct.
Coventry Climax
29th November 2024, 12:36
I agree with the entire gist of what you say.
The comments give me the impression of people trying to put their heels in the sand – as usual I might add.
There is one issue though that was brought up and indeed needs to be taken into account:
When atacking or defending, racing lines might not be so natural after all. What’s important to take into account, is that there is actually no such thing as a defined braking zone. An Astra might need a mile, while a Ferrari just needs fifty meters. We’ve seen F1 drivers being penalised for divebombing, while they made the corner alright and did not force their opponent off. They might have cut them off from steering into the corne, but that’s what outbraking and overtaking is actually all about. So those drivers were actually punished for driving a car with better (setup) brakes.
So I agree with what you say, but feel this (braking power/ability) needs to be taken into account when the stewards determine if either car’s trajectory is on collision or run-off course or not.
And then we haven’t even talked about those Pirelis yet..
I’m not a fan of AI, and I don’t even think it’s necessary, but that’s why I’d like to see such things more automated and based more on sensor values as well, which is something F1 is certainly capable of.
SPArtacus
30th November 2024, 8:01
I agree with all of what you say here: the issues about lines, people digging their heels in or being intentionally obtuse in many ways, experimenting with different ways of gauging incidents (you don’t need to actually institute them. you can see what the tools would say and then go back and see how effective/accurate they’ve been in judging incidents.
BMW P85 V10
28th November 2024, 20:35
Let’s forget about Norris’ (unsuccesfull) divebombs in Austria.
And to prevent a divebomb regulatory? Describe a brakepoint, or “no late braking”.
Where is the line between racing and show driving?
BMW P85 V10
28th November 2024, 20:36
+ how (after And, second sentence)
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
28th November 2024, 20:37
verstappen intentionally pushes people off the track and uses the rule crafted for him to do it.
its rather ridiculous, but f1 is appealing to a ridiculous mindset.
BMW P85 V10
28th November 2024, 20:58
Are rules crafted for Max. I thought most new rules were made because of Verstappen, not to favor him.
Austria & Austin was al good by the rules. Mexico was a shady in both perspectives.
In the end you can make up 10000 rules, some will utilize the rules to the Max and others the rules will hand them positions over opponents. Making more rules doesn’t make racing better.
SPArtacus
28th November 2024, 21:01
Forgive, pcx. He thinks just about everything is a conspiracy.
falken (@falken)
28th November 2024, 21:04
“ahead of the apex” all came about because of the way Max would, if he’d been overtaken by a car on his outside, drive straight on instead of turning for the corner, forcing the other drive to crash into him, or take action to avoid the crash and restore Max his position.
SPArtacus
28th November 2024, 21:00
Pushing off the track and dive bombing (a silly way to say braking late and getting to the inside line) are two very different things.
slowmo (@slowmo)
29th November 2024, 9:44
They can also be the exact same thing such as when you let off the brakes to go faster in the braking zone knowing full well you’ll run wide on exit where your opponents line is.
Ludewig
29th November 2024, 11:08
Not really. The point of the dive bomb is that you take the corner in a very slow way (fast in & slow out), but you block the other car, so you stay ahead. If the other car doesn’t accept this and tries to hang in there, they will generally be pushed off.
Hipposurf91
28th November 2024, 21:44
Just what F1 needs, MORE restrictions on anything remotely interesting happening. It’s already a technological arms race where overtaking typically only occurs with DRS assistance. Basically it’s being turned into a parade of expensive cars where the winner is determined in Quali as it more often than in the actual race itself.
Jere (@jerejj)
29th November 2024, 7:08
Certain part of his wording leaves room for interpretation & ambiguity.
notagrumpyfan
29th November 2024, 9:31
And interestingly, the longer the rulebook the more opportunity for ambiguity and (conflicting) interpretations.
Coventry Climax
29th November 2024, 12:47
Which -sorry to say- is generally based on inability to find the correct, concise wording to describe Yes or No.
The rules are often written in Chinglish. You know, when a manual was originally written in Italian, translated into Swedish for the Scandinavian market by a german, copied for the chinese fake counterpart product and translated into english as an afterthought. The words are mostly all english alright, but that’s about it.
Same with the FiA, which is originally a french organisation. Google translate sometimes even does a better job making comprehensible sentences, and that’s saying a lot.
Red Andy (@red-andy)
29th November 2024, 7:28
What if doing a dive bomb saves you more time than the penalty will cost you, George? Would it be ok then?
oweng (@oweng)
29th November 2024, 9:41
I think this is where F1 falls down compared to Indycar for example. The penalties there are pretty tough. It shouldn’t really be an option for a team to think that it’s worthwhile committing the foul because the advantage gained is greater than the possible penalty.
Red Andy (@red-andy)
29th November 2024, 14:55
I agree, and have argued that penalties should have more of a restorative element than being a fixed 5 or 10 seconds or whatever. Russell himself has admitted to “gaming the system” in this way in the past. The strength of any rule is determined by how it’s enforced.
baasbas
29th November 2024, 8:23
Why are people so salty.. This is good, right? Verstappen/Norris in Austin is the case being discussed. It appears Verstappen knows the rule book and therefore did not receive a penalty. Okay, well played I guess. But to me it would only be fair if he himself stayed within track limits. And from what I read that is also what Russell is saying, as that is the proposed change? And that idea isn’t new, it was obvious that details was up for discussion anyway
The shots he fired at the FIA, again, are more newsworthy. I like this Russell. He was always good at moaning, but someone pointed him towards the FIA and pulled the cord in his back and suddenly it’s a lot more entertaining :-)
slowmo (@slowmo)
29th November 2024, 9:51
Whatever else happens rules wise, when 80% of the grid disagree with a penalty then it is clearly wrong and it shouldn’t take 6 months to address that issue.
Ludewig
29th November 2024, 11:09
I can’t wait for Max to maximize his driving under the new rules and people calling for another rule change.
James Bond (@jamesbond)
29th November 2024, 13:53
Same here. Great entertainment!