Should the FIA Rethink Wet Weather Protocols in F1?

Belgian GP raises fresh concerns over FIA’s conservative approach to wet race conditions

The rain-soaked drama of the Belgian Grand Prix delivered a thrilling McLaren one-two, with Oscar Piastri leading home Lando Norris, but it also reignited one of Formula 1’s most heated debates: how the FIA handles wet-weather racing. While safety has always been the top priority, many in the paddock are beginning to question whether the FIA’s approach has become too cautious—potentially stifling the very skillset that makes elite F1 drivers stand out.

From drivers to team principals, there’s a growing feeling that something’s got to give. Is it time for the sport’s governing body to find a better balance between safety and spectacle?

Wet races: Safety vs. Spectacle

Does FIA need to rethink approach to wet race conditions? – F1 Q& WET

There’s no question Spa-Francorchamps is one of the most challenging and dangerous tracks on the calendar, especially in the wet. The tragic accidents that claimed the lives of Anthoine Hubert in 2019 and Dilano van ’t Hoff in 2023 are still raw reminders of how quickly things can go wrong at high-speed circuits with limited visibility.

So when the FIA delayed the start of Sunday’s race due to heavy rain, many understood the reasoning. But some drivers, notably Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton, felt the delay dragged on longer than necessary. Verstappen even suggested that had the race begun on time, the cars themselves would’ve cleared the worst of the standing water—no red flag needed.

“I think we could’ve just started at 3pm,” said Verstappen. “A couple of laps under the Safety Car would have been enough to clean the track.”

Hamilton echoed that sentiment, although he was quick to stress that he respects the FIA’s need to err on the side of caution after recent near-misses in junior categories.

The drivers, it must be said, can’t have it both ways. Following a crash at Silverstone earlier this season involving poor visibility in wet conditions, several drivers themselves urged race officials to delay starts if there was any danger of reduced vision. So when the FIA obliged at Spa, it wasn’t out of the blue—it was, in fact, a response to the drivers’ own calls for caution.

As Oscar Piastri put it post-race: “Maybe we could’ve done one less formation lap, but if one lap too early means someone ends up in hospital—or worse—is it worth it? No.”

Spa’s pole paradox: Is leading always an advantage?

Another curious talking point from the weekend came from the layout of Spa itself. Is pole position at this track actually a disadvantage?

Tom, a fan, asked: “Is there anything that can be done on this specific track to ensure pole is actually an advantage?”

It’s a fair question. Both pole sitters—Piastri in the sprint and Norris in the Grand Prix—lost their lead within seconds thanks to the infamous run up to Les Combes, where the slipstream effect is immense.

But each incident had its own story. In Saturday’s sprint, Piastri got a great start, but Verstappen was always going to breeze past him on the Kemmel Straight. The Red Bull was set up for lower downforce, making it faster in a straight line. Even though Piastri looked quicker in the technical middle sector, he simply couldn’t get close enough to mount a serious challenge.

Sunday’s race was a different beast. It was wet, and the race began behind the Safety Car. Norris, who started on pole, arguably botched the restart by accelerating too early, which allowed Piastri to tuck into his slipstream. A small mistake from Norris at La Source sealed the deal, and by the time they were halfway through Eau Rouge, Piastri was gone.

Even McLaren boss Andrea Stella raised questions about Norris’ restart judgment.

That said, the idea that Spa should somehow be redesigned to make pole a “guaranteed advantage” misses the point. Yes, the Kemmel Straight offers slipstreaming opportunities—but that’s part of what makes Spa, Spa. Charles Leclerc held on to the lead from pole in 2023, so it’s not an automatic loss. Variables like weather, tyre choice, and downforce setups all come into play.

Is the FIA’s caution hurting driver skill?

At its core, Formula 1 is about testing the absolute limits of man and machine. And nowhere is that more evident than in wet conditions. Watching Ayrton Senna in Monaco ’84 or Michael Schumacher at Spain ’96 remains etched in fan memory not just because of the wins, but because of the brilliance they displayed in treacherous conditions.

Some argue that today’s overly-cautious protocols prevent modern greats from showcasing the same.

But while it’s easy to romanticise those moments, F1 today is a different beast. The cars are faster. The field is closer. The stakes are higher. And perhaps most importantly, the expectations for safety are completely different.

Still, it’s worth asking: Is there a middle ground? Can the FIA work with the GPDA (Grand Prix Drivers’ Association) to craft a more flexible wet-race protocol that respects safety while still allowing for driver bravery and skill to shine?

What’s next?

With F1 heading to the Hungaroring before the summer break, the debate over wet-weather race control won’t go away. Hungary is not Spa—it’s tighter, slower, and has no real equivalent to the Kemmel Straight—but rain is never out of the question in the summer.

The FIA, for their part, will continue to tweak and evaluate procedures behind the scenes. But if one thing is clear, it’s that the sport must continue to have open conversations about risk, reward, and what it means to be a racing driver in today’s F1.

After all, balancing safety and spectacle isn’t just a regulatory issue—it’s part of the DNA of Formula 1.