It’s honest to say that the 2026 System 1 season has to this point generated extra controversy off the monitor than on it, with the same old countless debates surrounding the laws – and earlier than that, Mercedes’ engine compression ratio.
On monitor, nonetheless, issues have remained comparatively calm. There have been a handful of incidents and collisions right here and there, however nothing sufficiently contentious to put stewards below heavy scrutiny. In the intervening time, they’ve largely escaped criticism.
Wanting solely on the Sunday races, the opening three grands prix of the yr have been surprisingly uneventful within the stewards’ room.
In Australia, 4 incidents have 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 a particularly uncommon incidence, no investigations have been launched throughout 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. Finally, Canada turned the primary occasion genuinely marked by important steward intervention.
One fixed nonetheless emerges from each stewarding choice 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 state of affairs 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 have been generally seen as extreme for infractions not thought-about genuinely harmful.
The intention itself is comprehensible. It avoids putting drivers prone to suspension for accumulating “minor” errors, whereas trying to revive the system’s authentic goal: punishing genuinely critical offences and discouraging repeat behaviour.
Far more lenient stewards
Esteban Ocon obtained no penalty factors for the collision with Franco Colapinto in China.
Photograph by: James Sutton / System 1 / System 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 wrong way. The case of Isack Hadjar is maybe essentially the most revealing.
The Crimson Bull driver was penalised twice throughout the Canadian GP. The primary got here for his defence towards Charles Leclerc, throughout which he modified route a number of instances. He obtained 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 keeping with what has been seen this yr relating to offences punished by 10-second penalties.
See additionally:
Throughout the identical race, Oscar Piastri – penalised for inflicting contact with Alex Albon – additionally obtained 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 in fact nobody would counsel 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 better questions.
The Frenchman dedicated what’s historically considered a very critical offence: failing to “make a major discount in velocity” below double yellow flags. Even when the wording alone doesn’t totally convey the gravity of the infringement, the dimensions of the punishment actually does – a 10-second stop-and-go penalty, one of many harshest sanctions accessible in trendy System 1, wanting disqualification.
And but, as soon as once more, no penalty factors have 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
Based on data gathered by Motorsport.com, this shift within the utility of penalty factors stems from winter discussions between the FIA and the drivers. The drivers reportedly pushed for a softer system during which 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 quite a few 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 could possibly be imposed”.
Essentially, that clarification doesn’t drastically alter what was already frequent apply final yr. Nonetheless, the truth that the doc now explicitly states from the start that issuing no penalty factors in any respect is solely acceptable is extremely revealing.
Learn Additionally:
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 challenge 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 adjustments of route in defence: sporting penalties can vary from 5 seconds to a drive-through penalty, whereas stewards might challenge as much as three penalty factors.
The extra important adjustments concern the offence that traditionally attracted penalty factors greater than every 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 triggered”. It confirms what a number of stewarding choices already made clear final seasons – that penalties are explicitly taken under consideration.
The shift turns into even clearer within the part describing “inflicting a collision with no speedy and apparent sporting consequence”. A be aware states in plain phrases: “a ‘collision’ [in] which very minor contract e.g. a contact or ‘kiss’ might end in no penalty”. In such circumstances, the utmost variety of penalty factors accessible 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 chance of discount.
A points-based system stripped of its substance?
Kevin Magnussen is the one driver to have been suspended below 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, total, to cut back the variety of penalties, is subsequently clear. It’s a defensible goal in precept, however the Hadjar case in Canada raises troublesome questions.
Decreasing sanctions in an effort to concentrate on genuinely critical offences is one factor. But when ignoring double yellow flags now not qualifies as a critical infringement, then the vary of offences prone to set off penalty factors has grow to be extraordinarily slim.
In a proof by contradiction, one might fairly ask whether or not Max Verstappen would even have obtained 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 goal of sustaining a penalty factors system in System 1 if stewards are more and more reluctant to challenge 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 issues a breach of one among motorsport’s most basic security guidelines: disregarding one of many clearest warning indicators in racing.
The penalty factors system might by no means have functioned completely – and even ideally – however right now 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 true or unsuitable is just not 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 solely professional: is it nonetheless related to keep up the system conceived in 2014 in its present kind? There’s room for doubt.
Learn Additionally:
We would like your opinion!
What would you prefer to see on Motorsport.com?
– The Motorsport.com Workforce
