The FIA has apologised for the human error that left Formula 1 drivers without Overtake Mode during part of Singapore Grand Prix Sprint Qualifying, revealing that the problem originated from a pop-up window on a computer that was not handled quickly enough. The governing body acknowledged that the mistake may have affected some drivers more than others and is now examining how to prevent a repeat.
The incident occurred during SQ1 on Friday, after the session had been stopped following Sergio Perez’s accident. When Sprint Qualifying resumed, Race Control initially failed to reactivate Overtake Mode. The system was later switched back on for just 27 seconds before being disabled again for the remainder of SQ1 in the interests of fairness.
The FIA had already confirmed that human error was behind the Singapore Overtake Mode problem, which was separate from the timing-system issue also encountered during the opening phase of Sprint Qualifying.
Why Overtake Mode mattered during Singapore SQ1
Overtake Mode is particularly important because it provides drivers with additional electrical power during a qualifying lap. Its effect is not limited to the straights: the extra deployment also influences corner exits because the control electronics have to remap how energy is distributed throughout the lap.
The system forms an important part of Formula 1’s 2026 technical framework, with the 2026 Overtake Mode regulations defining how and when the additional energy can be made available or disabled by Race Control.
Initially, because of human error, the FIA did not reactivate the mode after the red flag. It was then enabled for 27 seconds before being turned off once more until the end of SQ1.
Several drivers were confused by the lack of power, while those eliminated at the end of the opening Sprint Qualifying segment felt they had been unfairly disadvantaged. Some teams even considered lodging a protest or asking the FIA to allow all 22 cars to participate in SQ2, effectively treating the second segment as a replacement for SQ1.
Ultimately, no protest was submitted. The issue affected almost the entire field to some degree, although not every driver suffered in the same way. The consequences were therefore not limited to teams near the bottom of the classification, with leading drivers including Andrea Kimi Antonelli and Charles Leclerc also affected.
Nikolas Tombazis explains the human error behind the failure
Speaking to Sky Germany, Nikolas Tombazis explained the circumstances that led to the confusion and subsequent mistake, stressing that “there are many things happening simultaneously in Race Control”.
One important factor is that Overtake Mode can only be activated when specific safety conditions are satisfied, which makes fully automating the process difficult. The same principle previously applied to DRS.
Specific configurations have to be respected in wet conditions, while in the dry certain circuit safety parameters must also be validated, particularly following a neutralisation. For that reason, the procedure remains manual.
“Normally, it is a manual process to re-enable it because, when it is reactivated, we want to make sure from a safety point of view that it is safe to do so,” Nikolas Tombazis explained.
“Unfortunately, there was a pop-up window that appeared on someone’s computer which was not responded to quickly enough or when it should have been. And then, under the time pressure and the general pressure of the moment, it was unfortunately forgotten.”
Race Control had access to the drivers’ team-radio transcripts, making it relatively straightforward to identify quickly that there was a problem involving energy deployment. The challenge was establishing the underlying cause.
There had been no previous problems during the season with reactivating Overtake Mode, either during races or qualifying sessions, including after interruptions such as red flags. The Singapore failure was therefore an unusual case.
Singapore problem was different from Sepang software failure
The FIA also stressed that the Singapore incident was fundamentally different from the problem seen at Sepang, where the disruption had been caused by a software error. In Singapore, the underlying cause was human error, something the governing body believes can be addressed through procedural changes.
“We therefore started an intensive analysis to understand whether there was another problem, because obviously we could hear the drivers complaining and asking what was happening. We understood where the problem was,” Nikolas Tombazis said.
The technical importance of energy deployment can also be explored through the F1 Top Speed Comparison, which provides context for straight-line speeds and energy-deployment differences across Formula 1 sessions.
Why Overtake Mode was restored for only 27 seconds
Once the origin of the problem had been identified, attention shifted towards the decision to restore Overtake Mode briefly for 27 seconds before disabling it again.
According to Nikolas Tombazis, allowing the system to remain active after some drivers had already completed laps without it could have created an additional fairness problem.
“At that moment, there was the incorrect decision to reactivate it briefly, but it was not exactly the right choice from a fairness point of view. And so it was deactivated again.”
The FIA did not rule out the possibility that the incident affected the Sprint Qualifying order. Different cars use their available electrical energy in different ways during a lap, meaning the absence of Overtake Mode could have had a greater effect on some drivers than on others, even though the system was technically unavailable to everybody during the affected period.
“We are not happy about it because it affected some drivers more than others,” Nikolas Tombazis acknowledged.
The disruption formed part of a particularly complicated opening phase of Sprint Qualifying, with Ferrari among the teams also trying to maximise performance during a session in which the fight for the Singapore Sprint front row remained extremely tight.
FIA admits Singapore SQ1 results may have been affected
For the FIA, the most serious aspect was the possibility that its own error interfered with the sporting outcome of the session.
“As a consequence, precisely in the first session of the Sprint, we felt that this problem interfered with the results, which for us at the FIA is probably, in some respects, the worst thing, given that our absolute priorities are always safety and fairness.”
Although the mistake was human in origin, its significance is considerable in a sport involving extremely small competitive margins. The priority now is to determine how the FIA can prevent the same situation from happening again, potentially through additional warnings or safeguards when a session resumes.
“Obviously, finding ourselves in a situation where a result is not fair or is incorrect is not good for us. It is certainly a complex job and people make mistakes, and we have to be aware of that. But when we make mistakes, we also have to analyse them and make sure they are not repeated. And that is what we are doing,” Nikolas Tombazis concluded.
Leave a Reply