Silverstone’s controversial Safety Car ending: Did the FIA have any other option?
- Chloe Buckley
- 1 hour ago
- 4 min read
Formula One has long prioritised driver safety more than its sporting spectacle, with the FIA’s regulations designed to ensure races are only resumed when it is safe to do so. However, the closing laps of the British Grand Prix reignited the debate on whether those rules hold the right balance. As fans questioned the decision to end the race under the Safety Car, attention quickly turned to the regulations that dictated the outcome.
On Lap 48 of the British Grand Prix, Max Verstappen crashed out from third place at Stowe, which resulted in a Safety Car. At this point in the race, there were four laps to go. Lewis Hamilton was running in second with Charles Leclerc in front. Ferrari decided to pit Hamilton for soft tyres, assuming there would be at least one lap of racing to go. In this time, George Russell moved ahead of Hamilton and into second, albeit on older tyres.
On the penultimate tour around Silverstone, lapped cars were allowed to overtake the Safety Car in preparation of a restart. As they crossed the line for Lap 52, the fans got ready to watch an exciting last minute battle for the win with Hamilton on fresh slicks against the drivers up front. The on screen graphic told viewers that the Safety Car was ending, however, what we watched was the Safety Car drive past the pitlane, and continuing to lead the grid around the circuit, resulting in a confusing and anticlimactic end to the Grand Prix.
However, after the race, the FIA explained their reasoning for the Safety Car staying out. In their official statement, they wrote: “The Safety Car period regulation, Article B5.13.5, states that one lap must be completed following the unlapping procedure. The 'Safety Car In This Lap' message was displayed erroneously due to a software error."
It is rare that an F1 race ends under a Safety Car, but it isn’t the first time it has happened. Whilst the circumstances differ on each occasion, previous examples provide more context to the decision that race control made.
For example, this incident has been closely compared to the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, and despite this race not ending under a Safety Car, it came under major scrutiny from fans, pundits and teams. With the World Championship on the line between Hamilton and Verstappen, a late Safety Car on Lap 53 was deployed following Nicholas Latifi’s crash.
Initially, it appeared that the race would finish under caution, but Race Director Michael Masi instead chose to allow any cars lapped by the race leader to unlap themselves before withdrawing the Safety Car with only one lap remaining. Verstappen on fresh tyres overtook Hamilton and proceeded to claim the race victory and the World Championship.
The FIA’s investigation following the race concluded that procedures used in Abu Dhabi were not applied in accordance with the Sporting Regulations in force at the time. The fallout led to significant changes within the race control including revised Safety Car procedures, and the replacement of the race director.
One of the biggest changes to the unlapping rule was the wording of said rule. Before 2022, it stated that ‘any’ cars that had been lapped were required to overtake the race leader and Safety Car. However, a very slight change was made after Abu Dhabi 2021, which changed it to ‘all’ lapped cars. Since only the five cars between Hamilton and Verstappen were instructed to overtake in Abu Dhabi, it cleared up ambiguity so that all cars were back in racing order.
However, the ‘one additional lap’ rule following cars unlapping themselves that was required at Silverstone was not introduced after Abu Dhabi. At the 2021 season finale, the Race Director did not follow the requirements stated in the Sporting Regulations. This is what led to the outrage of the situation, especially considering if they had followed the rules to a tee, the outcome of the World Championship that year would be entirely different.
In the instance of the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, the race director chose the sporting spectacle over the rules in the book. It’s a difficult predicament to be in, because if they went ahead with a final lap shootout at Silverstone, they would risk repeating the controversy of 2021. But since they didn’t allow a final lap of racing, they came under fire for denying fans a proper conclusion to the race.
The situation has opened more conversations around changing the procedure again, particularly to do with lapped cars. Jenson Button was one of the spectators to come forward and suggest a new method to allow racing to continue and avoid a Safety Car ending.
He suggested taking inspiration from NASCAR, where they would push the race and extra couple of laps, and if there happens to be another yellow flag in that time, they push it again. It would be difficult to do in F1 given the restrictions on fuel loads, but possibly something that could be worked around.
Martin Brundle suggested something along the lines of what IndyCar would do in this instance, which is move all of the lapped cars to the back of the pack instead of making them go around the circuit to rejoin. Ultimately, the controversy at Silverstone was less about whether race control wanted to deny fans a final lap and more about the constraints of the current regulations. Once lapped cars were instructed to overtake, Article B5.13.5 required an additional lap before the Safety Car could return to the pits. And with only one lap remaining, there wasn’t any other legal route to restarting the race.
Rather than questioning decisions made by race control, the events at Silverstone instead raise questions about whether the regulations should be reviewed. On a circuit as long as Silverstone, where lapped cars can quickly create enough distance between themselves and the race leaders, maybe it could’ve been safe to get the race restarted for one final lap.
If F1 wants to end the likelihood of ending races under caution while maintaining its commitments to safety, it may be the rulebook, not race control, that requires reconsideration.
Comments