How to fix F1's haphazard stewarding

No sooner had this column criticised Formula 1 for operating to regulations that were, in many instances, unenforceable - and applied inconsistently where they were - than the championship went out of its way in Mexico to further excel itself by punishing certain incidents that were arguably racing clashes, while seemingly ignoring a number of blatant transgressions entirely.

The inconsistencies got off to a good start, with Turn 1, lap one setting the scene for the next 100 minutes (plus a further two hours in post-race investigations). Leader and poleman Lewis Hamilton outbraked himself after the longest run to the first corner on the calendar, locked up and slid well wide - with impunity.

Post-race he blamed vastly differing brake temperatures across his car's front corners after glazing the discs on the formation lap, admitting he had been lucky to not hit the wall. That is how far off course he was; whatever, he returned to the track then backed off, and so the stewards decreed he had gained no advantage - but their verdict misses the point entirely, namely that he blatantly breached track limits.

Surely the name of the game is to keep the car on the black stuff at all times regardless of (dis)advantage? In any event - he had not gained an advantage over whom? Surely 'advantage' applies to the entire grid and the eventual outcome of the race, not whether those immediately behind the leader could/would/should have been able to immediately benefit.

Now apply the officials' logic to, say, football. The ball is out, and the referee decides no immediate advantage was gained, and therefore allows play to continue... imagine the outcry, particularly in cases where the World Cup is at stake. Consider the line technology used at Wimbledon, developed at great cost. A ball just a millimetre (or even less) beyond the line is adjudged to be out and penalised accordingly.

That Hamilton had not gained an advantage over his immediate followers was not entirely down to the world champion lifting off, either. Chasing duo Nico Rosberg and Max Verstappen were embroiled in a physical argument of their own, with the latter clumsily clattering into the German as he attempted to wrestle second place away at the first turn.

The general feeling in the paddock was that Verstappen would not have made the corner alone and unaided had he not leaned on the Mercedes - which subsequently suffered steering alignment maladies - yet the stewards found that no driver was entirely or predominantly to blame. Really?

Now contrast that with Malaysia, where Rosberg banged past Kimi Raikkonen's Ferrari in similar fashion, only to find himself docked 10 seconds for his efforts at a crucial stage in his chase for the world championship. Fortunately for Rosberg, Hamilton retired from that race, while his eventual lead over Raikkonen was such that the overall race classification was unaffected. That penalty could, though, have materially affected the title battle.

While there is no suggestion - heaven forbid - that stewards should manipulate championships, the fact of the matter is their decisions do affect championships, so stewards need to be even-handed and consistent in their application of the regulations at all times. If Rosberg deserved a penalty in Malaysia, then so did Verstappen in Mexico. If not, then Sunday's verdict was in order, so why was Rosberg penalised at Sepang?

Toro Rosso drivers Carlos Sainz Jr and Daniil Kvyat were equally peeved about their respective penalties - the former incurred for another clash with compatriot Fernando Alonso; the latter for breaching track limits (!) - with both subsequently echoing the increasingly common calls for a permanent team of race stewards.

"You and you and you will have different opinions to me and see things differently, it's only human," said Sainz as he pointed at three journalists.

"But at least if we have permanent stewards there should be more consistency, so we know what we can and can't do."

Kvyat wondered aloud whether it was even worth mentioning the issue during next week's Friday drivers' briefing in Brazil. Clearly drivers and team bosses have flogged this issue to death without resolution, which does not bode well.

Before the Mexican race, Formula One Management CEO Bernie Ecclestone created controversy by suggesting F1 should consider installing 15-inch-high walls at track edges to restrain drivers. Ecclestone is aware his reign is under threat by Liberty Media's purchase of majority control over F1's commercial rights, and likely wanted to deflect attention from the presence of Chase Carey, tipped as F1's chairman once all I's are dotted and T's crossed.

Not surprisingly the drivers gave the idea short shrift, both during the official Thursday FIA press conference and in team media sessions. Surprisingly, though, they were publicly outspoken about the matter, leading to suggestions that they have been briefed (by their team bosses?) that Ecclestone's grip over F1 appears to be waning.

Consider Rosberg's comments when asked about the wall proposal: "My opinion is that there are 10 other areas which we should look at if we want to make the sport even better than it is, before we start looking at turning back time on safety."

Or, presciently, Sergio Perez, speaking on home soil ahead of the race: "I think we can definitely make the circuits a bit more challenging for the drivers, not necessarily with walls but making the driver pay for mistakes if you go off, having a gravel trap and losing time. That kind of thing I think is good for the sport because that forces the drivers not to make any mistakes."

'Gravel traps' was a phrase on my lips after the race, and a return to the sandpits of old certainly has merit, for, as (eventual) third-placed driver Daniel Ricciardo said in Mexico, they punish drivers either through forcing them out of the race (without the expenses of crashing) or allow them to return, but with cars compromised by kitty litter. Either way, drivers will have paid some price for track-limit transgressions.

It is, though, not feasible to mandate gravel traps at every circuit - try persuading Prince Albert that his Monaco circuit would be enhanced by the addition of sand at every turn - or shark's teeth kerbs at every corner. But it's surely possible to apply a track limits clause at every event - perhaps defined as a car having its entire 'shadow' beyond track limits - particularly given FOM's eagle-eyed TV cameras, which record every move in high definition.

With that evidence, plus the ability to hit 'instant rewind', drivers committing such transgressions could immediately be docked with, say, five second penalties for first offences in a race, 10s for the second and 20s for the third. Such a procedure removes any form of subjectivity or argument whether an advantage was gained - drivers after all breach track limits only in error (punishable) or to gain an advantage (ditto).

The crucial word in that paragraph is 'subjectivity'. As Sainz and others pointed out, for too long now F1 has been held to ransom by subjective inconsistencies inherent in stewards' decisions. Would, though, a team of permanent stewards resolve that issue, or possibly compound it, given the dynamic between drivers and officials?

Imagine if a team of permanent stewards actively disliked a particular individual - a common human failing...

Then there is the cost factor: With 21 (or even more in future years) races, each lasting four days and spread across the globe, plus a minimum of two days travel time per event, a commitment of 130 days per year is simply too much to ask from a group of four or so volunteers. Given their collective responsibility the group would need to consist of motor-racing heavy hitters who know the regulations backwards.

Annual salaries of £200,000 each (plus perks and benefits) are therefore not inconceivable - particularly given the gravity of their decisions - providing a total of £1million when travel and accommodation are factored into the equation. Who would pay for this? The FIA, left severely cash-strapped after that myopic 100-year commercial rights deal struck by Max Mosley's administration with Ecclestone?

The notoriously parsimonious FOM, which (under the control of Ecclestone and venture funds) extracts maximum value from every dollar while investing the least in its golden goose? Liberty Media, still feeling its way around an enterprise it has only just bought and is currently quantifying?

The drivers, whose postures demand short arms unable to dig into deep pockets - who would each face having £50k added to the annual cost of superlicences?

The teams, some of who battled to pay their wage bills recently, which would suddenly have £100k added to entrant licence costs?

Try persuading any of these groups to pick up the tab - even partially - of permanent stewards, then stand well back. That is reality.

The only practical solution is therefore the current structure, namely two FIA-nominated stewards (one senior) drawn from a pool of competent volunteers; a driver steward up to the task; and a local steward nominated by the ASN (local motor club), which is ultimately responsible for operational and sporting aspects. The concept of permanent stewards is simply not economically feasible, unless FOM has a change of heart.

The situation is not, though, as bleak as it first appears. Just as last week's column argued for a team of regulatory experts to fine-comb F1's sporting and technical regulations in order to eliminate any ambiguities, so a manual should be devised to provide guidelines that remove inconsistencies from decisions.

In the real world even judges are bound by such guidelines. If crimes meet criteria A, B and C, then judges are forced by law to impose particular minimum sentences. If factor D contributes then a harsher sentence may well apply. If it works at the bar or bench in real life, why not on track?

Sure, both solutions demand dedication and time - plus funding - but revisions of ambiguous regulations and compiling of penalty manuals would in any event be continual works in progress, and so the immediate financial impact is minimal. Given the recent controversies, the starting points are clearly defined.

Paddock gossip increasingly links multiple championship-winning technical director and former team boss Ross Brawn with a senior sporting and technical executive role within FOM - possibly even as an eventual replacement for Ecclestone, as originally suggested here in 2013 - and a better man to oversee such a manual would be virtually impossible to find.

Formula 1 deserves both the man and the manual.