Analysis
A stewarding decision has two clocks. One measures how long officials need to reach a defensible conclusion. The other measures how much of the race has changed while everyone waits. Formula 1 cannot afford to ignore either.
Rob Smedley has put that tension back into focus. In a report published on September 20, Motorsport described the former Ferrari and Williams engineer’s proposal for an augmented stewarding group, made on the High Performance Racing podcast. His argument is that additional capacity could help straightforward incidents receive decisions during the race, while complicated cases would still need longer consideration. This is a proposal, not an announced FIA reform.
The useful question is where that extra capacity would go. TENS Magazine’s assessment is that F1 should measure the stages of an investigation before treating a larger panel as the answer. Finding the relevant evidence, interpreting it and communicating a ruling are different jobs. Adding people to the wrong stage could leave the delay intact.
Start the stopwatch before the verdict
A practical review would record when an incident happened, when its evidence became ready for examination, when deliberation concluded and when the outcome reached competitors. That would distinguish a queue of untouched cases from a genuinely difficult judgment. Both produce waiting, but only the first clearly points toward a shortage of available reviewers.
Consider a hypothetical clash with several camera angles. If most of the delay comes from assembling synchronized footage, another decision-maker receives the same incomplete file. Extra evidence support could be more useful. If the complete file sits waiting while officials consider other incidents, additional adjudication capacity becomes a stronger proposition. We are describing a way to test Smedley’s idea, not claiming access to the FIA’s internal timing records.
There is already substantial support infrastructure to examine. In its April 30, 2025 account of the RaceWatch system, the FIA described Race Control and its Remote Operations Centre identifying and tagging incidents, followed by triage and escalation to stewards where needed. That is historical documentation of a workflow, rather than proof of how quickly any particular 2026 case was handled.
Detection is only the opening lap
The same FIA account reported that its track-limits technology reduced manual review requirements dramatically. Such a claim concerns a defined detection task. It should not be converted into a promised reduction in the time needed to settle disputed contact between drivers.
Our distinction is between locating something that deserves attention and deciding what it means. A system can present a clearer picture sooner without resolving questions about responsibility. The sensible ambition is to remove avoidable waiting around a judgment while preserving the time required to make it properly. A single speed target for every incident would reward the wrong kind of haste.
That suggests comparing similar cases. Publish aggregate timings for straightforward infringements separately from contested driving incidents and matters requiring later examination. Show the slow end of each group as well as the typical case. An improving average could otherwise hide a small number of unresolved investigations that matter enormously to the people involved.
This would also give viewers a better language for delay. A brief explanation that evidence is still being gathered means something different from confirmation that the stewards are deliberating. Neither requires broadcasting private discussions. Both would make the process more intelligible than an unexplained wait.
More people need shared standards
Capacity is not simply a headcount. On March 24, 2026, the FIA announced steward and race-director training programmes, including continuing development for experienced officials and regional pathways. It said the programmes would conclude with assessment and certification. Those plans establish a commitment to developing officials; they do not demonstrate that any proposed expanded F1 group is already staffed or delivering faster rulings.
For TENS, the implication is that an expanded operation should be assessed on consistency alongside speed. If similar evidence produces divergent outcomes across reviewers, a quicker process has bought a new problem. Shared case preparation and clear responsibility for the final decision would need to accompany any expansion. Faster circulation of information is useful only when everyone understands who must act on it.
There is also a boundary that a better workflow cannot abolish. Smedley acknowledged that post-race technical examinations can still affect the result. A race finishing is not evidence that every relevant measurement has already been completed. Promising instant finality would confuse an operational improvement with the removal of necessary checks.
The next persuasive step would therefore be a measured trial: identify where comparable cases wait, direct additional support there and report whether decisions arrive sooner without sacrificing consistency. No public evidence reviewed for this article establishes the size of that potential gain. But it offers a clearer standard for judging reform than the number of chairs in a room. F1 should aim to finish more of its decision-making while the sporting contest is still unfolding—and explain precisely when it cannot.
