The 2025 Belgian Grand Prix at Spa-Francorchamps quickly turned from a race into a flashpoint, sparking intense backlash from drivers and fans alike. What should have been an exciting and historic race became a showcase of frustration due to controversial decisions by the FIA regarding weather conditions and race delays. The sequence of events raised questions not only about race control decisions but also about the very soul of Formula 1 itself.

At the heart of this controversy was a downpour that made conditions at Spa extremely challenging. Visibility was near zero due to heavy rain, leading to the FIA’s decision to delay the race. That delay, initially understandable, led to a cascade of decisions that would anger teams and drivers, especially after their preparations for a wet race were seemingly disregarded. In this deep dive, we’ll explore the controversy, the reactions from those involved, and what this incident means for the future of Formula 1.

The Scene: Wet Weather, Poor Visibility

The day began with relentless rain at Spa, one of the most iconic and dangerous circuits on the Formula 1 calendar. The FIA initially followed the standard procedure in such conditions: formation lap behind the safety car, with a delay to ensure safety. While understandable at first, the situation soon escalated. The conditions weren’t just wet – they were dangerous. Walls of spray meant that drivers could barely see, and the visibility issue became the central challenge.

The initial delay made sense given the extreme weather. Safety is, of course, the FIA’s top priority, and nobody wants to see drivers racing in conditions where they cannot see the track. However, as the wait dragged on, tensions began to rise. Teams, particularly those like Red Bull, had set up their cars specifically for the wet conditions. Their rear wings, aerodynamics, and tire choices were all calibrated to make the best of the wet weather, but now they faced the reality of a changing race plan.

The Problem with the Setup

For teams like Red Bull, which had prepared meticulously for the wet conditions, the decision to delay for such an extended period was particularly frustrating. Max Verstappen’s engineer, Simon, was particularly blunt in expressing how pointless the setup now seemed. If they had known that race control’s plan was to wait for the rain to stop and the track to dry out, they would have opted for a very different car setup altogether. A significant amount of time, effort, and engineering expertise had seemingly been wasted. This moment of frustration raised larger questions about the FIA’s decision-making process.

The Issue of Visibility

While grip in wet conditions was always going to be challenging, the crux of the problem wasn’t just how much water was on the track, but rather the visibility caused by the spray. Modern Formula 1 cars, with their wide tires and aerodynamics, kick up enormous amounts of spray when driving through heavy rain. This effectively blinds drivers who are further back in the pack, making it almost impossible for them to race safely.

Yet, there were arguments that the situation wasn’t as dire as it appeared. After an hour-long delay, the cars did begin to run behind the safety car, but many felt that this could have happened much earlier. With the safety car out on track, it would have helped clear a racing line, akin to using a squeegee to push water off the surface. Had this been done sooner, the track might have been racable earlier, instead of letting the rain continue to pour down.

Drivers’ Reactions

The reactions from the drivers, especially Verstappen, were swift and candid. Verstappen called the decision to suspend the race start “silly” and suggested that a few laps under the safety car could have helped clear the water. He criticized the FIA for being overly cautious, especially when the drivers felt they were fully capable of managing the conditions. Verstappen, along with other veterans like Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso, expressed frustration that their judgment and experience were being sidelined.

For these drivers, the race isn’t just about sitting behind a safety car waiting for the rain to stop; it’s about pushing boundaries and finding ways to adapt to tough situations. Their anger wasn’t just about losing out on a race – it was about having their experience and judgment dismissed. These drivers, after all, are the ones who regularly race in tough conditions and are arguably the best people to judge whether a race is safe to begin.

The FIA’s Perspective: A Focus on Safety

From the FIA’s perspective, the extreme caution was born from a deep concern for safety. Recent tragedies at Spa, such as the deaths of drivers Antoine Hubert in 2019 and Delano Van Hoff in 2023, loomed large. Spa, historically, has been a track that sees its share of danger in the wet, and the FIA’s reluctance to push forward in challenging conditions stems from these tragic events. Their responsibility is to prevent another fatality, and this, no doubt, weighs heavily on their decision-making process.

The fear of risking another life in such conditions is not a decision made lightly, and it’s easy to see why the FIA would err on the side of caution. But here’s the counterargument: modern F1 cars are highly engineered machines, designed to cope with extreme weather. Their tires are equipped to handle massive amounts of water, and the drivers are skilled professionals who train for such conditions. So, where’s the line between safety and allowing racing to take place? Should a sport known for pushing the limits of human and machine performance become sterilized to avoid risk?

The Tire Debate

One of the more complicated aspects of this debate is the tire choice. Formula 1 has two primary wet-weather tires: the intermediate and the full wets. Full wet tires are designed for soaking tracks and can shift enormous amounts of water, up to 85 liters per second per tire at full speed. So why weren’t they used more in Spa? The answer is that full wets take much longer to heat up and require stable, constant wet conditions to perform optimally. In conditions where the rain might ease off, teams might prefer intermediates to avoid the full wets not getting up to temperature.

But the full wets offer significant advantages, particularly in improving visibility by reducing spray. If used correctly, they would have likely been the better tire choice for this particular event. Pirelli, the tire supplier, may need to look into developing a full wet tire that heats up more quickly and is more adaptable to fluctuating conditions.

The Changing Essence of F1?

Historically, rain has been one of the most exciting and defining aspects of Formula 1. Some of the greatest moments in the sport have come during wet-weather races – think of Hamilton’s dramatic drive in Brazil 2008 or Michael Schumacher’s genius drive in Spain 1996. Rain was seen as a challenge that separated the greats from the rest of the field. But now, with this new caution, is rain becoming a reason not to race? Is F1’s spirit of racing being compromised in the name of safety?

Formula 1 is about more than just speed on a dry track; it’s about intelligence, adaptability, and bravery. The drivers are expected to take on risk – that’s what makes the sport so thrilling. If the FIA continues down this path of extreme caution, there’s a genuine concern that the very essence of F1 could be lost.

Looking Ahead: What Needs to Change?

So, what can be done to move forward? First and foremost, Formula 1 needs better wet-weather tires. Full wets need to be a viable option, not just a last resort. Pirelli should be tasked with developing tires that can perform across a wider range of conditions, especially in situations like those at Spa.

Beyond the tires, the FIA needs to rethink its approach. Race control should trust the judgment of the drivers more. While safety must remain the top priority, drivers are the ones in the cars, and their feedback is invaluable. Instead of resorting to extended delays and suspensions, the FIA should consider allowing more racing behind the safety car, giving drivers the opportunity to assess conditions and make real-time decisions.

The Future of Spa and F1

If the FIA continues down this cautious path, it could have real-world consequences, particularly for iconic tracks like Spa. If weather consistently leads to delays and cancellations, these tracks may no longer be seen as reliable options for hosting races, which could lead to their removal from the calendar.

Formula 1 must find the balance between safety and spectacle. If it fails to do so, it risks losing not only its historic tracks but also the unpredictable, thrilling nature of the sport that fans and drivers love. The pressure from drivers, fans, and commercial interests will likely push the FIA to reconsider its approach. If it does, the result could be a more balanced and exciting future for Formula 1 – one that embraces challenges, not just avoids them.

Full Video: