Why Fernando Alonso’s FIA complaint about Lewis Hamilton’s Singapore GP incident doesn’t hold up
The closing laps of the 2025 Singapore Grand Prix produced one of the weekend’s most debated moments, as Fernando Alonso questioned whether Lewis Hamilton should have faced additional FIA penalties for allegedly driving an unsafe car. The Aston Martin driver was frustrated to see Lewis Hamilton struggling with brake issues yet continuing to defend position, cutting corners in the process. However, a closer look at the regulations and race precedent reveals why the stewards’ decision not to impose a harsher penalty was, in fact, consistent with Formula 1’s sporting rules.
Hamilton’s brake troubles and the late-race incident
During lap 60 of the 62-lap race, the British driver radioed his engineer Riccardo Adami to report severe brake degradation, saying that he was “losing his brakes.” His lap times dropped dramatically as Fernando Alonso’s Aston Martin closed the gap. In an effort to keep the car on track and make it to the finish, Hamilton ran wide several times — behavior that drew Alonso’s irritation over team radio. The Spaniard, who was chasing seventh place, believed that Hamilton’s defensive maneuvers and continued running with apparent brake failure created both a sporting and safety issue.
After reviewing the footage, the FIA stewards imposed a five-second time penalty on Lewis Hamilton for leaving the track and gaining an advantage, demoting him behind Fernando Alonso in the final classification. Hamilton argued afterward that his situation should have been considered a case of force majeure, suggesting that mechanical failure forced him off the track and therefore he should not have been penalized. The stewards disagreed, citing the Driving Standards Guidelines that clearly define when leaving the track is excusable.
Understanding the FIA’s stance on track limits
The FIA’s guidelines state that a driver can exceed track limits only under specific conditions — such as avoiding a collision, losing control due to a clear mechanical issue, or being forced off by another car. However, the Briton’s situation, while difficult, did not fall within these categories according to the stewards’ interpretation. They concluded that his off-track excursions were not the result of an uncontrollable loss of control but rather attempts to maintain race position despite technical limitations.
In the stewards’ view, even though Lewis Hamilton’s brakes were failing, he still had enough control over his car to choose whether to continue at race speed or to slow down. This distinction made the difference between a legitimate safety concern and a normal case of exceeding track limits under mechanical strain.
Alonso’s reaction and safety concerns
As Lewis Hamilton battled to reach the finish line, Fernando Alonso expressed disbelief over the radio, reportedly questioning whether it was safe for his former teammate to continue with braking problems. His message — asking if it was acceptable to “drive with no brakes” — quickly sparked debate among fans and analysts about the FIA’s duty to intervene when a car is potentially unsafe.
The relevant regulation in this scenario is Article 26.10 of the FIA Sporting Regulations, which deals with vehicles in unsafe conditions. It specifies that a driver must leave the track as soon as it is safe to do so if the car has “significant and obvious damage to a structural component” or a “failure or fault which means it cannot reasonably return to the pit lane without impeding another competitor.” The rule also grants the race director the authority to decide if a car is unsafe and to order it to retire using the black and orange flag.
Why the FIA did not intervene in Hamilton’s case
In this case, race director Rui Marques did not believe Hamilton’s Mercedes presented a risk to others on track. While brake problems affect performance and stopping power, they do not typically result in debris or parts detaching from the car — unlike a damaged front wing or suspension failure, which could pose a direct danger to nearby competitors. Therefore, the issue was deemed a performance limitation rather than a structural safety concern.
The FIA has also followed similar reasoning in previous races. Earlier in the season, during the Chinese Grand Prix, Lando Norris completed the final two laps with serious brake trouble, describing it afterward as “scary” and his “worst nightmare.” Despite the severity of the issue, no intervention was deemed necessary. In that instance, George Russell was much closer to Norris than Fernando Alonso was to Lewis Hamilton in Singapore, yet the FIA made the same call — reinforcing the principle of consistency.
How driver exaggeration complicates the picture
It’s also important to remember that Formula 1 drivers often exaggerate mechanical issues over the radio, particularly in high-pressure situations. When Hamilton claimed to have “no brakes,” it likely meant he had significantly reduced braking performance rather than a total failure. His ability to complete the final laps and manage the car across the line suggests the situation, while critical, was not as catastrophic as it may have sounded in real time.
Why the regulations ultimately favored Hamilton
In the end, it could be argued that Hamilton had a stronger case than Fernando Alonso when it came to interpreting the rules. The guidelines do allow drivers some leeway if they lose control due to mechanical failure, and a sudden brake issue arguably fits within that definition. However, the stewards’ view was that Lewis Hamilton’s situation did not involve a complete loss of control but rather an ongoing degradation — making his continued racing a matter of risk management, not regulatory exemption.
As for Alonso’s concerns about safety, the FIA’s decision aligns with precedent and the principle that not every mechanical failure renders a car unsafe. The threshold for intervention is high, typically reserved for cases where components could detach or where the car physically obstructs other competitors.
Conclusion: no double standards, just consistency
The debate between Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton over the Singapore Grand Prix incident highlights how fine the margins are in modern Formula 1 regulations. While the Spaniard felt that Lewis Hamilton should have been penalized further or even ordered to retire, the FIA’s decision was consistent with how similar cases have been handled throughout the season. The rules prioritize safety without punishing drivers for nursing mechanical problems — as long as those problems do not endanger others on track.
Ultimately, the incident serves as another example of how subjective racing regulations can appear in the heat of battle. Fernando Alonso’s frustration may have been understandable, but the FIA’s interpretation of its own guidelines suggests that Hamilton’s case was handled by the book.
Leave a Reply