The roar of the engines at the Xanvort Grand Prix was almost drowned out by the roar of frustration from drivers and fans alike.

The race, which should have been a celebration of speed and skill, was instead mired in a series of controversial penalties that have once again brought the consistency and clarity of the FIA’s stewarding into question.

From high-profile collisions to questionable overtakes and last-minute penalties, the Xanvort GP has become a flashpoint for a debate that has been simmering all season: are the rules of Formula 1 being applied fairly?

The most contentious incident of the race involved a dramatic collision between Ferrari’s Carlos Sainz and AlphaTauri’s rookie driver, Liam Lawson. The clash, which saw both drivers’ races compromised, resulted in a 10-second penalty and two penalty points for Sainz. The Spanish driver was visibly incensed by the decision, arguing that the penalty was disproportionately harsh. In a post-race interview, Sainz expressed his frustration, stating that he felt he hadn’t been overly aggressive in the corner and that the penalty had cost him valuable championship points.

Sainz’s frustration was not just directed at the stewards but also at Lawson’s driving style. He commented that it wasn’t the first time the young driver had put himself in a vulnerable position on the track. This public criticism adds another layer to the drama, highlighting the intense pressure and high stakes of every race. For a driver like Sainz, who is constantly fighting for podium finishes, a penalty of this nature is more than just a slap on the wrist; it’s a significant setback in a fiercely competitive season.

However, the stewards saw the incident differently. In their official statement, they maintained that Sainz was “predominantly to blame” for the collision. Their reasoning was based on the fact that Sainz’s car’s front axle was not ahead of Lawson’s at the apex of turn 1, a key factor in determining fault in such incidents. This justification, while technically sound according to the rulebook, did little to quell the feeling among many that the penalty was overly punitive, especially given the context of other, similar incidents that went unpunished.

This brings us to the second major point of contention: the aggressive overtake by Charles Leclerc on George Russell. Leclerc’s move, which saw him go off-track to gain an advantage, was investigated after the race. To the surprise of many, the stewards deemed it a “racing incident,” a decision that caused widespread confusion, particularly among the drivers who were on track and had witnessed the event unfold.

The lack of a penalty for Leclerc stood in stark contrast to the punishment handed out to Sainz, fueling accusations of inconsistency. If Sainz’s move was deemed worthy of a significant penalty, why was Leclerc’s arguably more blatant transgression let go with a mere warning? This is the question that echoed through the paddock and across social media platforms in the hours and days following the race.

Interestingly, both Leclerc and Russell seemed to agree with the stewards’ decision, with both drivers stating that they felt it was a racing incident and that no further action was necessary. Even Mercedes’ team principal, Toto Wolff, who has been known to be fiercely protective of his drivers, expressed that he didn’t want to see Leclerc penalized for the incident at Monza, despite believing that his driver was not at fault. This sportsmanship, while commendable, does not address the underlying issue of inconsistent stewarding.

The drama did not end there. Seven-time world champion Lewis Hamilton also found himself in the stewards’ crosshairs. Hamilton was handed a 5-second penalty and two Super License points for failing to slow down sufficiently under double yellow flags. The penalty, which he will have to serve at the upcoming Monza Grand Prix, marks the end of an impressive 51-consecutive race weekend streak without a Super License penalty for the British driver.

The stewards’ decision was based on telemetry data, which showed that Hamilton had only reduced his speed by 20 km/h, a figure they deemed insufficient given the circumstances. While the safety aspect of this rule is not in question, the application of the penalty has once again raised eyebrows. Is there a clear and consistent guideline for what constitutes “slowing down sufficiently”? Or is it a subjective judgment call that can vary from one set of stewards to another?

The Xanvort GP also saw a number of other drivers, including Lando Norris, Nico Hülkenberg, and Max Verstappen, investigated for driving too slowly during reconnaissance laps. In a rare instance of leniency, the stewards chose not to penalize the drivers, accepting their explanation that they had slowed down to let other cars pass. While this decision was welcomed by the teams involved, it only added to the perception of a lottery-like system of justice in Formula 1.

The events at Xanvort have placed the FIA in an incredibly difficult position. The organization is facing a barrage of criticism from all sides, with drivers, teams, and fans calling for greater clarity and consistency in the application of the rules. The increasing aggressiveness of modern Formula 1 racing has made the stewards’ job more challenging than ever, but that does not excuse the perceived inconsistencies that are currently plaguing the sport.

The core of the issue seems to be a lack of a clear and universally understood set of guidelines for what constitutes a penalty-worthy offense. Is a collision always the fault of the driver who is behind? How much of the track is a driver entitled to when making an overtake? What is the acceptable level of speed reduction under double yellow flags? These are the questions that need to be answered if Formula 1 is to maintain its credibility as a fair and competitive sport.

As the season moves on to the iconic Monza circuit, the events of Xanvort will cast a long shadow. The drivers will be more cautious, the teams will be more anxious, and the fans will be watching with a critical eye. The FIA has a responsibility to address these concerns and to work with the drivers and teams to create a system that is fair, consistent, and easy to understand. The future of Formula 1 depends on it. The drama and excitement of the sport should be about the skill of the drivers and the performance of the cars, not the unpredictable and often frustrating decisions of the stewards.