A severe penalty
The final decision from the stewards regarding Charles Leclerc’s track limits violations during the final lap of the Miami Grand Prix arrived around 11:30 PM Italian time. This followed his spin and slight contact with the wall, which likely caused damage to the suspension and the left side of the car, making it difficult for the Ferrari #16 to properly steer his SF-26.
The stewards took a firm stance, handing Charles Leclerc a 20-second penalty—the equivalent of a drive-through—which dropped him from sixth to eighth place in the final classification.
In the official explanation document, the stewards reported Charles Leclerc’s version of events. The Monegasque driver explained that “the car felt okay, except for the fact that it wouldn’t turn properly in right-hand corners.” This issue forced him to cut multiple corners, as he was unable to follow the normal racing line. However, the stewards did not consider this a mitigating factor and instead imposed a heavy penalty: “We determined that by cutting the chicanes (leaving the track), he gained a lasting advantage. The fact that he had some form of mechanical issue does not constitute a justifiable reason. Therefore, we impose a Drive Through penalty on car 16, considering the number of times the car left the track and gained an advantage.”
Risk of an even harsher punishment
Leclerc even risked receiving a more severe penalty. In the FIA document, the stewards stated that they also evaluated whether an additional sanction should be applied for continuing to drive a car in potentially unsafe conditions: “We also considered whether there was a further breach in continuing to drive a car with an evident and perceivable mechanical issue,” the note reads. “We determined that there was no evidence of an obvious or perceivable mechanical problem. Therefore, we took no further action in relation to this potential infringement.”
The Hamilton precedent in Singapore 2025
The penalty given to Charles Leclerc is undoubtedly severe and, in isolation, can be considered justified. However, it raises questions when compared to a nearly identical precedent from the 2025 Singapore Grand Prix, which was judged differently. In that case, the driver involved was also a Ferrari driver: Lewis Hamilton.
During that race, Hamilton completed the final laps at a very slow pace due to a brake issue and, on the last lap, cut several corners—just as Charles Leclerc did in Miami. However, the British driver received only a five-second penalty. What is particularly striking is that the stewards’ explanation at the time was very similar: “During the hearing, the driver confirmed that he left the track on several occasions. He was trying to manage a brake issue. That said, following further checks and in accordance with the list of mitigating circumstances set out in the Driving Standards Guidelines, the stewards determined that this did not constitute a justifiable reason and applied the standard penalty for this type of infringement. This was not contested by either the team representative or the driver.”
Of the four stewards present in Singapore 2025, only one—Natalie Corsmit—was also present in Miami.
Stricter application of the rules
The only plausible explanation for the harsher treatment of Leclerc appears to lie in the now well-known “Guidelines.” In section D, which deals with track limits, the following is stated: “Respecting track limits is considered important for both fairness and safety; therefore, Article B1.8.6 will be strictly enforced: ‘Drivers must make every reasonable effort to remain on track at all times and may not leave the track without a justifiable reason. Drivers will be judged to have left the track if no part of the car remains in contact with it and, for the avoidance of doubt, the white lines defining the track edges are considered part of the track, but the kerbs are not…’”
In summary, Charles Leclerc appears to have paid the price for a stricter interpretation of track limits compared to how similar situations were judged last season, effectively becoming a victim of a tightening of the rules.
Leave a Reply