The day after the Belgian Grand Prix, Formula 1 finds itself in the middle of a debate sparked by the decision to delay the start of the race at Spa-Francorchamps due to rain. Two opposing views have emerged regarding how the early stages of the race were handled by the FIA. In particular, three-time world champion Max Verstappen expressed strong criticism of the race direction, stating that the decision to delay the start was not the right one.
For many observers and fans, postponing the beginning of the race was perceived as a restriction of the true essence of motor racing. Max Verstappen has been one of the most vocal supporters of this viewpoint. The Dutch driver has long been known for excelling in wet weather conditions, where driver skill can make a significant difference regardless of machinery. Given the performance gap between Red Bull Racing and the resurgent McLaren team, Verstappen likely saw the rain-soaked conditions at Spa as a strategic opportunity to level the playing field.
Verstappen said that the race control acted with excessive caution. He pointed out that at the time the start was originally scheduled, it was not raining heavily and the track was in a manageable state. According to the Dutch driver, Formula 1 should have begun the race under the Safety Car, completing three or four laps before releasing the field for proper racing. “Race direction was way too conservative. We should have started immediately because it wasn’t raining. We could’ve followed the Safety Car for three or four laps, and then started racing. They told us they’d be cautious, but this was extreme,” he said.
Verstappen had opted for a wet-weather setup, tailored specifically to take advantage of the rain. From his point of view, Red Bull Racing’s strategic choice was based on Sunday’s weather forecasts, which predicted consistent rainfall around the official start time of 3:00 PM local time. When the race was postponed and ultimately run under drying track conditions, it disrupted not only his race strategy but also the broader planning of several other teams that had prepared for a wet Grand Prix.
Postponing the race, therefore, posed two significant issues. First, it nullified the strategic work done by the teams who had prepared for wet-weather conditions. Second, it raised fundamental questions about the nature and spirit of Formula 1 as a motorsport. In Verstappen’s view, part of the challenge and excitement of racing is precisely about adapting to difficult and unpredictable weather conditions.
It is true that Spa-Francorchamps is one of the most challenging and dangerous circuits on the Formula 1 calendar. But according to Verstappen, the conditions were not bad enough to justify such a delay, and the decision represented an excess of caution. He pointed out that in the past, drivers with far fewer safety systems and protective gear raced in similar or worse conditions without these types of interruptions.
The Dutch driver’s perspective also reflects how much Formula 1 safety standards have evolved in recent years. Incidents like Romain Grosjean’s fiery crash at the Bahrain Grand Prix in 2020 or Lando Norris’s high-speed accident during qualifying at Spa in 2021 have highlighted the incredible progress made in car and track safety. Verstappen argued that this progress should give the FIA more confidence in allowing races to start in less-than-ideal conditions.
Of course, the FIA’s decision was influenced not only by the weather but also by tragic events in recent years. Two fatal accidents have occurred at Spa in the junior categories: Anthoine Hubert lost his life in a Formula 2 crash in 2019, and Dutch driver Dilano van ’t Hoff tragically died in a Formula Regional European Championship race in 2023. These events have understandably made the FIA more cautious.
However, it is important to recognise that the cars involved in those tragedies were significantly different from Formula 1 machinery. They were much lighter, smaller, and lacked the same level of protection. Furthermore, the weather conditions during those accidents were far worse than those witnessed during the 2025 Belgian Grand Prix. Verstappen’s argument is that F1 cars today are safer than ever before and that the race could have been started earlier without compromising driver safety.
At the heart of the debate is a broader question about what Formula 1 should be. Despite the risks of racing in heavy rain, Verstappen stressed that these are supposed to be the 20 best racing drivers in the world, competing at the highest level in the most advanced cars. Rain should be part of the challenge, not a reason to delay racing altogether.
His comments also raise a critical technical question: why do full wet tyres exist if they are never used? In recent years, the full wet compound developed by Pirelli has been deemed almost unusable because of the excessive spray it generates, which severely limits visibility. As a result, drivers often rely on intermediate tyres even in heavy rain, or races are postponed entirely. This calls into question whether Formula 1 should push for the development of a new type of wet-weather tyre that can function effectively in poor conditions without creating visibility hazards.
The debate between Max Verstappen and the FIA over the Spa Grand Prix delay is not just about one race. It touches on the evolving philosophy of Formula 1, balancing the need for safety with the essence of what makes the sport exciting and unpredictable. For now, the discussion remains open—should the sport embrace more risk for the sake of spectacle, or is caution the correct path forward?
Leave a Reply