How Stroll and Magnussen revealed the scale of F1’s racing and rules problems

First, he tries around the corner so long it's officially two turns, squeezing ahead by the pinching left-hander next up. But his rival is quicker away – the exit speed higher from a less acute line.

A brief peace ensues before they’re sweeping into a fiery, fast left, where he deliberately holds back to maintain higher momentum for his next attack: slingshotting around the subsequent fast right and into the tight left’s resulting stop.

Still, his opponent isn’t vanquished – again cutting back on exit. This sends him wide and so hard over the kerbs his right hand slips off the steering wheel. But he’s not giving up, sending another unlikely outside line barrage into the next obtuse left.

PLUS: Chinese Grand Prix Driver Ratings 2024

On the battle goes, through a lengthy double-right corner this time and onto a mammoth straight run. Here his rival deploys a potent weapon – rear wing flying open and the speed rising to such an extent a nonchalant drift back to the racing line follows. But still, the fight isn’t done, as he surges back to the inside for the track’s biggest stop.

One more cutback follows, so again he must play the aggressor – this time through the surprisingly tight final turn that has caught out the illustrious across the weekend. One last DRS-assisted blast from his rival brings danger back to the very spot where the thrilling tete-a-tete commenced. Finally, he’s clear.

That all happened in Formula 1’s 2024 Chinese Grand Prix. Brilliant, determined racing between the two drivers that had produced the most cack-handed errors of the main event – Lance Stroll and Kevin Magnussen. All over last place.

Lance Stroll and Kevin Magnussen in the thick of the battle at the Chinese GP

Photo by: Mark Sutton / Motorsport Images

Up front, aside from uncontested breezes by the yet-to-stop Charles Leclerc and Lando Norris, race winner Max Verstappen had basically nothing to do in claiming his 58th F1 career victory. Autosport knows even he prefers some competition – the Dutchman personally elevating battling successes such as USA 2021 in a special reworking of our assessment of his best wins at last year’s Mexican GP. He’s a racer, after all.

But as the third season of Red Bull’s latest dominant streak unfurls, there is now no uncertainty. The rules reset heralded as the start of a new era of brilliant racing, has half-failed. Or half-worked, for some.

Half-worked in the sense that the performance gap between the whole field is smaller than in the previous ultra-high-downforce era and car following is easy, even as the dirty air factor swells again. Half-failed in the sense that since Red Bull lightened its initial ground-effect concept, there has been no regular multi-team scrap at the front.

Not every motor race needs to be an unpredictable, electrifying scrap with a different winner each time

That is far more on the opposition. And not every motor race needs to be an unpredictable, electrifying scrap with a different winner each time.

Formula E – now an utterly incomprehensible racing spectacle – had that at the start of its Gen2 era. And after eight different winners in eight races that season, the lack of emotive discussion points the chaos masked was apparent.

Different winners, even if this requires regular more straightforward races, would still amount to a great F1 season – think 2010 or 2021. And, ultimately, that’s what it needs.

Red Bull’s design legend Adrian Newey recently told Autosport that “it's going to be a much tighter fight for us this year than it was last year and no doubt it will be an even tighter fight for everybody next year". But, while tantalising for the spectacle F1 needs in 2025, the next rules reset being really not far away now in 2026 will, predicts Newey, mean "the chances of that blowing the grid apart have to be pretty significant".

The peloton-style racing in Formula E can be difficult to follow and shows that unpredictability isn't the be all and end all

Photo by: Sam Bagnall / Motorsport Images

F1 is at a point where much of what has made it very much better has made other elements worse. How the cost cap has massively improved team financial health but traps the underperforming into elongated defeat as they can’t spend their way out of progress. And, apparently, shuts the field to interested outside parties.

So far, this is subjective, but what absolutely makes F1 worse is an ongoing sporting rules shambles. And there was much of this last weekend in Shanghai.

It was an event that perhaps was always going to mean many stewards’ rulings. A second race always has the potential for more racing drama than a normal weekend, while the new, controversial and temporary track surface this year meant the drivers had to implement careful tyre preparation plans and Shanghai’s wide pitlane invites movement even as it gets more confined.

PLUS: Did F1's new sprint format work?

Plus, the track’s layout is actually quite pleasingly brutal. It could catch out a driver pushing solo – Carlos Sainz in Saturday qualifying and so nearly Fernando Alonso in the GP – and invites the type of battles outlined above if the cars are close enough.

Overall, we counted eight instances of rules focus last weekend. These are headlined by the 1m45s it took for the virtual safety car to be activated while Valtteri Bottas’s Sauber was stranded in the Turn 11 runoff.

The only FIA explanation of a situation where a car and driver were in the potential firing line of another incident was a statement produced during the race that only explained why the VSC was then upgraded to a full safety car.

The other queries raised by rules rulings – as outlined in our article from Monday, ‘10 things we learned from the 2024 Chinese GP’ – included deleting and reinstating Norris’s sprint qualifying pole time. Then reprimanding Nico Hulkenberg for passing two cars in the pitlane early in GP qualifying, after clearing Alonso for squeezing past Zhou Guanyu in the pit exit channel just a bit further along the previous day as SQ3 began.

The delay in removing the stricken Sauber of Valtteri Bottas was never properly explained

Photo by: Mark Sutton / Motorsport Images

Then there was applying Alonso’s sprint penalty when he’d already retired, but not doing so for Ricciardo’s GP sanction with the Australian out further from second event’s end. Plus, dismissing Aston Martin’s protest of Sainz’s post-Q2 crash rejoining.

There was also giving Alonso three penalty points for clipping Sainz in the sprint, when Stroll and Magnussen ended the GP for the RB drivers and respectively got two each. Plus the decision to not penalise Stroll for shoving Hulkenberg off early in the GP – with a similar move between Alex Albon and Pierre Gasly also cleared. And, finally, penalising Logan Sargeant heavily for a close safety car line overtake on Hulkenberg in the main event.

Now, the FIA and the independent stewards it appoints are doing a better job at explaining why certain decisions have been taken so far this term.

The stewards bulletins are, overall, more detailed. For instance, in explaining why Aston’s protest was dismissed, the stewards revealed that a team-approved move to clarify the rule in question that would’ve prevented this protest getting going just wasn’t enacted after the 2023 season.

Autosport sources have indicated that at least privately the governing body is admitting its own oversight and is committed to making the recommended change from the 2023 Belgian GP

In the case of Article 39.6 and crashed cars rejoining under their own steam, Autosport sources have indicated that at least privately the governing body is admitting its own oversight and is committed to making the recommended change from the 2023 Belgian GP. This is that the words “outside assistance” are to be added to Article 39.6 after all, having received team agreement to do so coming at that Spa event. This is set to occur at the next Sporting Advisory Committee meeting.

These gatherings occur a minimum of six times a year, with the next scheduled for mid-June. But if a repeat situation occurs, say, at the Miami round next up, then the Shanghai verdict stands as a precedent.

Autosport also understands that the situation where Alonso’s sprint penalty was added to his race time despite him being out in the pits, while Ricciardo will take a grid drop to Miami for seemingly the same sanction, is also due to be reviewed in the next SAC meeting. This rule – Article 54.3 – is also likely to be formally changed in the next rules update.

Ricciardo will serve a grid drop in Miami, but Alonso's sprint penalty was applied to that event even though he'd already retired

Photo by: Mark Sutton / Motorsport Images

On these apparent loopholes, it has been suggested that recent staffing turnover at the FIA contributed to the rejoining rule update not being passed.

Many and complex rules rulings are to be expected in a technical sporting discipline. That basic elements are not enacted – and other areas are deemed so vague the stewards are asking for assistance – just isn’t. It is, however, good to hear progress on the specifics outlined here is coming.

For fixing such exasperating elements would go some way to cooling the current agitation with F1’s rules overall.

Progress is thankfully anticipated on the frustratingly inconsistent application of rules

Photo by: Zak Mauger / Motorsport Images